Prothonotary v Hirata [2000] NSWSC 106

Prothonotary v Hirata [2000] NSWSC 106

The defendant, while acting as the solicitor instructing counsel for the accused in a jury trial, knowingly approached a juror after deliberations had begun, spoke to him, said she had something for him, produced an envelope, and held it out towards him. Although she did not intend to influence the juror or cause discharge of the jury, she intended to do the acts found. Those acts had, as a matter of practical reality, an objective tendency to cause a juror to believe the envelope related to the trial and contained a threat, reward or inducement, and also an objective tendency to provide a ground for discharging the jury. The charge of contempt was therefore established beyond reasonable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Contempt of Court, Criminal in Nature / Supreme Court Determination of Whether Contempt Was Established After the Matter Was Referred Under S203 of the District Court Act
Outcome
Contempt of court established.
Legal Topics
['interference With Jurors' 'objective Tendency to Interfere With Administration of Justice' 'mens Rea in Contempt' 'jury Discharge']
['contempt of Court' 'criminal Procedure'] ['interference With Jurors' 'objective Tendency to Interfere With Administration of Justice' 'mens Rea in Contempt' 'jury Discharge']

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

Proceedings for Contempt of Court, Criminal in Nature / Supreme Court Determination of Whether Contempt Was Established After the Matter Was Referred Under S203 of the District Court Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant, a solicitor instructing counsel for the accused, committed contempt of court by approaching a juror during a criminal trial and holding out an envelope to him.' 'Whether the plaintiff had to prove an intention to interfere with the administration of justice or only that the defendant intended to do the acts alleged.' "Whether the defendant's conduct had, as a matter of practical reality, an objective tendency to influence the juror by causing him to believe the envelope contained a threat, reward or inducement, or to provide a ground for discharging the jury."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, while acting as the solicitor instructing counsel for the accused in a jury trial, knowingly approached a juror after deliberations had begun, spoke to him, said she had something for him, produced an envelope, and held it out towards him. Although she did not intend to influence the juror or cause discharge of the jury, she intended to do the acts found. Those acts had, as a matter of practical reality, an objective tendency to cause a juror to believe the envelope related to the trial and contained a threat, reward or inducement, and also an objective tendency to provide a ground for discharging the jury. The charge of contempt was therefore established beyond reasonable...

Court Disposition

Contempt of court established.

Orders

  • ['The charge of contempt of court is found established.']