R v Hawkins (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1408

R v Hawkins (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 1408

The jury was not discharged because, although the witness's non-responsive reference to a sawn-off shotgun was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial, it was brief, unintended, not malicious, unlikely to be vividly etched on the jury's minds, and not a serious occurrence in the context of the trial and the other evidence. The potential prejudice was capable of being cured by a direction that the evidence was inadmissible, irrelevant and to be ignored, together with directions limiting the use of other relationship and weapons evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Murder Trial / Application to Discharge the Jury During Trial
Outcome
The application to discharge the jury was refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Discharge Jury' 'non Responsive Witness Answer' 'prejudice and Fair Trial' 'judicial Directions' 'inadmissible Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 18']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['application to Discharge Jury' 'non Responsive Witness Answer' 'prejudice and Fair Trial' 'judicial Directions' 'inadmissible Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 18']

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 Law Murder Trial / Application to Discharge the Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged because a witness gave a non-responsive answer referring to a single barrel sawn-off shotgun.' 'Whether the potential prejudice from the inadmissible and irrelevant evidence could be cured by judicial direction.' "Whether the judge's intervention to stop the witness highlighted the prejudicial evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was not discharged because, although the witness's non-responsive reference to a sawn-off shotgun was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial, it was brief, unintended, not malicious, unlikely to be vividly etched on the jury's minds, and not a serious occurrence in the context of the trial and the other evidence. The potential prejudice was capable of being cured by a direction that the evidence was inadmissible, irrelevant and to be ignored, together with directions limiting the use of other relationship and weapons evidence.

Court Disposition

The application to discharge the jury was refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to discharge the jury is refused.']