R v Potier [2005] NSWCCA 336

R v Potier [2005] NSWCCA 336

The application was refused because the matters the applicant sought to explore with the former juror went directly to jury deliberations or rested on mere conjecture or speculation about bias. The authorities precluded examination of jurors about deliberations, and the applicant had not shown a proper foundation...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Orders Requiring Persons to Attend and Give Evidence at the Hearing of the Appeal
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['attendance of Witnesses on Appeal' 'juror Deliberations' 'juror Bias' 'disclosure by Jurors' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'jury Law'] ['attendance of Witnesses on Appeal' 'juror Deliberations' 'juror Bias' 'disclosure by Jurors' 'miscarriage of Justice']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Orders Requiring Persons to Attend and Give Evidence at the Hearing of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a former juror who allegedly wrote a book about the applicant's trial should be required to attend and give evidence at the hearing of the conviction appeal." 'Whether the applicant could examine the former juror about how the jury considered evidence or about matters said to disclose bias.' 'Whether an alleged contravention of s 68B of the Jury Act 1977 assisted the applicant in obtaining the order sought.' "Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required to attend and give evidence because of alleged conversations with the author or alleged conduct by the Director's servants and agents."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the matters the applicant sought to explore with the former juror went directly to jury deliberations or rested on mere conjecture or speculation about bias. The authorities precluded examination of jurors about deliberations, and the applicant had not shown a proper foundation for apprehended bias or for examining the juror. An assumed contravention of s 68B of the Jury Act 1977 did not assist the application. There was also no basis to require the Director of Public Prosecutions to attend, because the asserted inferences from conversations with the author and allegations about the Director's servants and agents were unsupported and did not show that...

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']