R v Ngo; Dao; Dinh [2000] NSWSC 1254

R v Ngo; Dao; Dinh [2000] NSWSC 1254

The evidence did not justify restricting access to the public and press galleries, given the open justice principle. Evidence of what occurred in the previous jury's deliberations was rejected on public policy grounds, but the high profile nature of the trial, the prior inability of a jury to agree, and the expected length of the trial justified reasonable steps to secure the jury's security and the integrity of its deliberations. Transporting jurors to and from home was a reasonable precaution and did not, as a matter of reasonable practicality, give rise to bias against the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Crown Notice of Motion Concerning Conduct of Trial
Outcome
Non-publication order repeated; order for jury transport made; restriction of access to public and press galleries refused on the evidence then available; sequestration order not made at that stage but indicated as the judge's present intention when required.
Legal Topics
['restriction of Access to Public Galleries' 'special Transport Arrangements for Jury' 'jury Sequestration' 'evidence of Jury Deliberations']
['criminal Law and Procedure'] ['restriction of Access to Public Galleries' 'special Transport Arrangements for Jury' 'jury Sequestration' 'evidence of Jury Deliberations']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings / Crown Notice of Motion Concerning Conduct of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether access to the public and press galleries should be restricted to persons approved by the Court.' 'Whether the Sheriff should provide transportation for jurors to and from court in a manner deemed appropriate by the Sheriff.' 'Whether the jury should be sequestered from retirement to consider verdicts until verdicts are returned.' "Whether evidence of what occurred in the previous jury's deliberations was admissible on the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not justify restricting access to the public and press galleries, given the open justice principle. Evidence of what occurred in the previous jury's deliberations was rejected on public policy grounds, but the high profile nature of the trial, the prior inability of a jury to agree, and the expected length of the trial justified reasonable steps to secure the jury's security and the integrity of its deliberations. Transporting jurors to and from home was a reasonable precaution and did not, as a matter of reasonable practicality, give rise to bias against the accused.

Court Disposition

Non-publication order repeated; order for jury transport made; restriction of access to public and press galleries refused on the evidence then available; sequestration order not made at that stage but indicated as the judge's present intention when required.

Orders

  • ['Order for non-publication relating to the hearing of all matters relating to the application remains in force and was repeated.' 'Order 2 in the notice of motion filed on 24 August 2000 was made: the Sheriff is to provide transportation for the jurors to and from court in a manner deemed appropriate by the Sheriff.']