R v Newson (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1166
Having regard to the substantial volume of material, including many witnesses, exhibits, jury notes and a two-day view, the period of jury deliberation was not concerning; the jury appeared capable and attentive, and it was appropriate to leave them undisturbed unless they sought assistance or indicated inability to reach unanimity.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 June 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Procedure Trial Ruling / Defence Application During Jury Deliberations for Jury to Be Reminded of Directions Concerning Proof and Circumstantial Evidence
- Outcome
- Application by defence refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['jury Directions' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'jury Deliberations' 'unanimous Verdict']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure Trial Ruling / Defence Application During Jury Deliberations for Jury to Be Reminded of Directions Concerning Proof and Circumstantial Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the jury should be reminded of directions concerning the onus and standard of proof and circumstantial evidence after deliberating for about 25 hours over seven days without communicating with the Court.']
Ratio Decidendi
Having regard to the substantial volume of material, including many witnesses, exhibits, jury notes and a two-day view, the period of jury deliberation was not concerning; the jury appeared capable and attentive, and it was appropriate to leave them undisturbed unless they sought assistance or indicated inability to reach unanimity.
Court Disposition
Application by defence refused.
Orders
- ['Application by defence refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment