BROWN V. THE QUEEN

BROWN V. THE QUEEN

The possibility that a trial judge's comments during voir dire might come to the attention of the jury is not, by itself, enough to warrant special leave to appeal in the absence of a request for protective measures or demonstrated impropriety; the trial judge's comments were not immoderate nor improper in the present circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Stuart Lloyd Brown; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1973
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal Refused
Outcome
special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confession, Judicial Comments During Voir Dire, Jury Separation, Trial Procedure
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confession Judicial Comments During Voir Dire Jury Separation Trial Procedure

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Lloyd Brown

Applicant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial miscarried due to the trial judge's comments on the credibility of the accused during voir dire and use of immoderate language
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge ought to have taken steps (such as separating the jury) to prevent the jury from learning of his comments

Ratio Decidendi

The possibility that a trial judge's comments during voir dire might come to the attention of the jury is not, by itself, enough to warrant special leave to appeal in the absence of a request for protective measures or demonstrated impropriety; the trial judge's comments were not immoderate nor improper in the present circumstances.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for special leave to appeal refused.