R v CZAJKOWSKI; R v SHEPHERD [2002] NSWCCA 530

R v CZAJKOWSKI; R v SHEPHERD [2002] NSWCCA 530

The foreperson's note, received after addresses and before summing-up, indicated that a juror or jurors were biased against drugs and had made up their minds on day one. In those circumstances, the appellants or a fair-minded and informed member of the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension that the jury would not discharge its task impartially. The case was a clear one of reasonable apprehension that the jury could not discharge its task impartially, so the convictions could not stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in the District Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; new trials ordered for both appellants.
Legal Topics
['trial by Jury' 'jury Impartiality' 'apprehended Bias' 'discharge of Jury' 'drug Importation Offences']
['criminal Law and Procedure'] ['trial by Jury' 'jury Impartiality' 'apprehended Bias' 'discharge of Jury' 'drug Importation Offences']

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 Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury after receiving a note from the foreperson stating that some jurors were biased against drugs and had made up their minds on day one.' 'Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of some members of the jury.' "Whether the trial judge's directions were sufficient to overcome any apprehension of bias or prejudgment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The foreperson's note, received after addresses and before summing-up, indicated that a juror or jurors were biased against drugs and had made up their minds on day one. In those circumstances, the appellants or a fair-minded and informed member of the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension that the jury would not discharge its task impartially. The case was a clear one of reasonable apprehension that the jury could not discharge its task impartially, so the convictions could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; new trials ordered for both appellants.

Orders

  • ['Appeals allowed.' 'Convictions and sentences quashed.' 'New trials of both appellants.']