R v Cranston (No 18) [2022] NSWSC 1553

R v Cranston (No 18) [2022] NSWSC 1553

The passages of transcript relied upon and the additional alleged matters, considered as a whole, did not make it necessary to discharge the jury and did not give rise to any legitimate concern that Mr Menon's interests might be prejudiced; to the extent any suspected prejudice was identified, it could be removed by a jury direction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure — Trial — Jury / Application to Discharge Jury on Day 111 of the Trial
Outcome
The application is rejected.
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'fair Trial' 'jury Directions' 'trial Management']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Discharge' 'fair Trial' 'jury Directions' 'trial Management']

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 Procedure — Trial — Jury / Application to Discharge Jury on Day 111 of the Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged on day 111 of the trial because exchanges between counsel for Mr Menon and the Bench, and alleged judicial facial expressions or head movements, might prejudice Mr Menon or undermine his defence case.' 'Whether any suspected prejudice could be removed by a direction to the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The passages of transcript relied upon and the additional alleged matters, considered as a whole, did not make it necessary to discharge the jury and did not give rise to any legitimate concern that Mr Menon's interests might be prejudiced; to the extent any suspected prejudice was identified, it could be removed by a jury direction.

Court Disposition

The application is rejected.

Orders

  • ['The application is rejected.']