Agelakis v R [2020] NSWCCA 72

Agelakis v R [2020] NSWCCA 72

The appeal had to be allowed because admissible material obtained through the Sheriff's investigation showed that one or more jurors had knowledge of other charges against the appellant and that Juror 1 had publicly shared and maintained an extreme view about sex offenders. Those matters would lead a fair-minded and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sheriff Investigation of Jury Irregularities Under S 73 a of the Jury Act 1977 (nsw)' 'exclusionary Rule Concerning Jury Deliberations' 'reasonable Apprehension of Juror Bias' 'retrial or Acquittal After Quashing Conviction']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'jury Misconduct' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sheriff Investigation of Jury Irregularities Under S 73 a of the Jury Act 1977 (nsw)' 'exclusionary Rule Concerning Jury Deliberations' 'reasonable Apprehension of Juror Bias' 'retrial or Acquittal After Quashing Conviction']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Sheriff's report, a juror statement and a record of interview were admissible on the appeal despite the exclusionary rule concerning jury deliberations." 'Whether knowledge by one or more jurors of other charges against the appellant and the Facebook post by Juror 1 gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether, after quashing the conviction, the Court should order a retrial or enter a verdict of acquittal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal had to be allowed because admissible material obtained through the Sheriff's investigation showed that one or more jurors had knowledge of other charges against the appellant and that Juror 1 had publicly shared and maintained an extreme view about sex offenders. Those matters would lead a fair-minded and informed member of the public reasonably to apprehend that the jurors may not have discharged their task impartially, causing a miscarriage of justice. A retrial, rather than an acquittal, was appropriate because the charge was serious, the Crown was not seeking to bring a different case, and guilt or innocence should desirably be determined by a jury.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the conviction and sentence imposed in the District Court.' 'Order a retrial of the applicant.' 'Remit the matter for mention in the District Court in Sydney on 11 October 2019 at 9:30 AM.']