Smith v The Queen [2015] HCA 27

Smith v The Queen [2015] HCA 27

The trial judge's failure to inform counsel of the jury's interim votes and voting patterns did not constitute a denial of procedural fairness because such information was not relevant to any issue before the court or to the exercise of discretion under the Jury Act. Therefore, non-disclosure could not amount to unfairness and the appeal should be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Leslie Glyn Smith; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fair Trial, Procedural Fairness, Jury Deliberations, Majority Verdicts, Confidentiality of Jury Deliberations
Criminal Law Fair Trial Procedural Fairness Jury Deliberations Majority Verdicts Confidentiality of Jury Deliberations

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Glyn Smith

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's failure to disclose the jury's interim votes and interim voting patterns to counsel constituted a denial of procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the interim votes and voting patterns were relevant to the issue before the court or to the exercise of judicial discretion to permit a majority verdict or discharge the jury
  3. 3 Whether a trial judge is required to inform counsel of jury voting information

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's failure to inform counsel of the jury's interim votes and voting patterns did not constitute a denial of procedural fairness because such information was not relevant to any issue before the court or to the exercise of discretion under the Jury Act. Therefore, non-disclosure could not amount to unfairness and the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed