Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017Citation:[2019] HCA 9Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:20 Mar 2019Case Number:M129/2018Read more

Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017Citation:[2019] HCA 9Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:20 Mar 2019Case Number:M129/2018Read more

The court held that the Prasad direction is contrary to law and should not be administered to a jury determining a criminal trial. The process of balloting jurors must comply strictly with statutory requirements.

Parties
Respondent: The Crown; Applicant: Accused
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jury Directions, Prasad Direction, Reserve Jurors, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Jury Directions Prasad Direction Reserve Jurors Fair Trial

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Respondent

Accused

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prasad direction is contrary to law and should not be administered to a jury determining a criminal trial
  2. 2 Whether the ballot to reduce the jury to 12 jurors was conducted at the time at which the jury was required to retire to consider its verdict

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Prasad direction is contrary to law and should not be administered to a jury determining a criminal trial. The process of balloting jurors must comply strictly with statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Prasad direction should not be given in criminal trials
  • The verdicts of not guilty are set aside