Regina v M A BRIGHT [2000] NSWCCA 258

Regina v M A BRIGHT [2000] NSWCCA 258

Because the matter concerning the juror's prior knowledge and possible connections was not brought to the trial judge before verdict, important questions remained unanswered and no specific warning could be given. In those circumstances, including the significant possibility of contamination of the entire panel, the parties or the public would have a reasonable apprehension that the juror concerned, if not the entire panel, might not have brought an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the issues, requiring the appeal to be allowed, the convictions quashed and a new trial ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['jury Contamination' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'impartial Jury' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Contamination' 'reasonable Apprehension of Bias' 'impartial Jury' 'new Trial']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether information that a juror had some knowledge of the matter and had been associated with persons connected to the accused created a reasonable apprehension that the juror, or the jury panel, might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues.' 'Whether the failure to bring the matter to the trial judge before verdict, preventing investigation or a specific warning, required the convictions to be quashed and a new trial ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the matter concerning the juror's prior knowledge and possible connections was not brought to the trial judge before verdict, important questions remained unanswered and no specific warning could be given. In those circumstances, including the significant possibility of contamination of the entire panel, the parties or the public would have a reasonable apprehension that the juror concerned, if not the entire panel, might not have brought an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the issues, requiring the appeal to be allowed, the convictions quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['The appeal should be allowed.' 'The convictions should be quashed.' 'There should be a new trial.']