R v Ahola (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 703

R v Ahola (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 703

The high degree of necessity required for discharging the jury was not established. It was not clear the jury heard or interpreted the evidence as prejudicial, remedial steps were taken, and directions or comments could address any risk. Hence, the application to discharge the jury was rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application to discharge the jury rejected
Legal Topics
['discharge of Jury' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law'] ['discharge of Jury' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'jury 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged due to potentially prejudicial evidence given by a fingerprint expert']

Ratio Decidendi

The high degree of necessity required for discharging the jury was not established. It was not clear the jury heard or interpreted the evidence as prejudicial, remedial steps were taken, and directions or comments could address any risk. Hence, the application to discharge the jury was rejected.

Court Disposition

application to discharge the jury rejected

Orders

  • ['The application to discharge the jury is rejected.']