REGINA v Bruce Allan BURRELL [2006] NSWCCA 74

REGINA v Bruce Allan BURRELL [2006] NSWCCA 74

Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicant did not demonstrate reviewable error in Barr J's discretionary refusal of a permanent stay or adjournment. The publicity concerning the previous jury's failure to agree and speculation about its deliberations was not of the exceptional character required to undermine a fair trial, and it was open to the trial judge to rely on the lapse of four months, the jury selection process, and directions requiring jurors to decide the case only on the evidence and not conduct their own research.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Rejecting an Application for a Permanent Stay or Adjournment / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave Before Second Trial
Outcome
Application for leave dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'adjournment' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'jury Directions' 'juror Internet Research']
['criminal Procedure' 'practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'adjournment' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'jury Directions' 'juror Internet Research']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Rejecting an Application for a Permanent Stay or Adjournment / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave Before Second Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether adverse publicity about the previous jury's failure to agree, including speculation about the majority view, was of such an exceptional character as to warrant a permanent stay of proceedings." 'Whether a delay of four months was sufficient to remove the risk of prejudice from adverse publicity upon prospective jurors.' 'Whether directions to the jury panel and trial jury would be sufficient to address any risk of prejudice from adverse publicity.' 'Whether directions not to conduct research, including internet research, together with the Jury Act 1977, were sufficient to address the risk of jurors accessing prejudicial material.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicant did not demonstrate reviewable error in Barr J's discretionary refusal of a permanent stay or adjournment. The publicity concerning the previous jury's failure to agree and speculation about its deliberations was not of the exceptional character required to undermine a fair trial, and it was open to the trial judge to rely on the lapse of four months, the jury selection process, and directions requiring jurors to decide the case only on the evidence and not conduct their own research.

Court Disposition

Application for leave dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave dismissed.']