CF v R [2022] NSWCCA 260

CF v R [2022] NSWCCA 260

Leave was refused because there was no arguable basis for demonstrating House v The King error in the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury. The jury note, read as a whole and prefaced by "what if", did not convey to a fair-minded and informed member of the public that any juror had formed a conclusion about the facts or the effect of the evidence. It was a request for assistance and, although it contained a misconception about the time span for count 4, it did not suggest prejudgment or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Order Refusing to Discharge a Jury in a Criminal Trial / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'discharge of Jury' 'jury Note' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'apprehended Prejudgment' 'leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'discharge of Jury' 'jury Note' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'apprehended Prejudgment' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Urgent Application Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Order Refusing to Discharge a Jury in a Criminal Trial / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury note gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the jury or a juror might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues in the trial.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory refusal to discharge the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because there was no arguable basis for demonstrating House v The King error in the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury. The jury note, read as a whole and prefaced by "what if", did not convey to a fair-minded and informed member of the public that any juror had formed a conclusion about the facts or the effect of the evidence. It was a request for assistance and, although it contained a misconception about the time span for count 4, it did not suggest prejudgment or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal dismissed']