R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 885

R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 885

Because the offence was a serious and unprofessional breach of S68A Jury Act 1977 that exposed the innermost details of jury deliberations to a significant radio audience, a mere fine, bond, or community service would be insufficient for punishment and deterrence. However, because the breach resulted from ignorance rather than knowing defiance, this was the first prosecution of its kind, and full-time custody, periodic detention and home detention were inappropriate, the proper sentence was imprisonment for fifteen months suspended on condition of entering a good behaviour bond for the same period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing for Soliciting Information From a Former Juror Under S68 a Jury Act 1977 / Sentence After Conviction Following Trial by Jury
Outcome
Sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months, suspended for that period on condition of entering into a good behaviour bond for fifteen months.
Legal Topics
['soliciting Information From a Former Juror' 'secrecy of Jury Deliberations' 'suspended Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'jury Law'] ['soliciting Information From a Former Juror' 'secrecy of Jury Deliberations' 'suspended Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence']

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 Sentencing for Soliciting Information From a Former Juror Under S68 a Jury Act 1977 / Sentence After Conviction Following Trial by Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for soliciting information from a former juror about jury deliberations.' 'Whether the offence should be dealt with by a fine, bond, community service, periodic detention, home detention, full-time custody, or a suspended sentence.' 'The seriousness of intrusion into the secrecy of jury deliberations and the need for general and personal deterrence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the offence was a serious and unprofessional breach of S68A Jury Act 1977 that exposed the innermost details of jury deliberations to a significant radio audience, a mere fine, bond, or community service would be insufficient for punishment and deterrence. However, because the breach resulted from ignorance rather than knowing defiance, this was the first prosecution of its kind, and full-time custody, periodic detention and home detention were inappropriate, the proper sentence was imprisonment for fifteen months suspended on condition of entering a good behaviour bond for the same period.

Court Disposition

Sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months, suspended for that period on condition of entering into a good behaviour bond for fifteen months.

Orders

  • ['Richard John Sinclair Laws is sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months.' 'Execution of the sentence is suspended for fifteen months upon condition that he enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a like period of fifteen months.' 'The bond is to include the conditions stipulated in S95 of the Crimes...