R v Hunter (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 1151

R v Hunter (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 1151

The application for discharge of the jury was refused because the admissible and inadmissible prejudicial evidence needed to be considered in the context of the whole trial; the prejudice caused was not of such magnitude as to necessitate the discharge of the jury, and the effect of the evidence could be managed through judicial direction and other safeguards; the test of a 'high degree of necessity' for discharge had not been established.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Paul Andrew Hunter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Discharge of Jury During Trial
Outcome
Application for discharge of jury refused.
Legal Topics
Inadmissible Opinion Evidence, Jury Discharge, Prejudicial Evidence, Judicial Directions
Criminal Law Inadmissible Opinion Evidence Jury Discharge Prejudicial Evidence Judicial Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Paul Andrew Hunter

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Discharge of Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inadmissible opinion evidence given by a witness necessitates discharge of the jury
  2. 2 Whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence can be cured by judicial direction
  3. 3 Application of the 'high degree of necessity' test for discharging a jury

Ratio Decidendi

The application for discharge of the jury was refused because the admissible and inadmissible prejudicial evidence needed to be considered in the context of the whole trial; the prejudice caused was not of such magnitude as to necessitate the discharge of the jury, and the effect of the evidence could be managed through judicial direction and other safeguards; the test of a 'high degree of necessity' for discharge had not been established.

Court Disposition

Application for discharge of jury refused.

Orders

  • The application is refused.