R v Pratten (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1665

R v Pratten (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1665

The cumulative effect of the accused's opening address created a significant degree of unfairness that could not be overcome by judicial direction to the jury without risk of countervailing unfairness to the accused or the prosecution. No evidence had yet been adduced, and the principles of fairness and prevention of miscarriage of justice required discharge of the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Procedural Ruling (jury Discharged)
Outcome
Jury is discharged
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'fair Trial' 'opening Statement' 'abuse of Process' 'fairness in Criminal Proceedings']
['criminal Law' 'procedure'] ['jury Discharge' 'fair Trial' 'opening Statement' 'abuse of Process' 'fairness in Criminal Proceedings']

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

Criminal / Trial Procedural Ruling (jury Discharged)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged due to alleged unfairness arising from the opening statement of counsel for the accused' 'Application of fairness principles to parties in criminal trial' 'Appropriate scope of defence opening address under s 159 Criminal Procedure Act 1986']

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative effect of the accused's opening address created a significant degree of unfairness that could not be overcome by judicial direction to the jury without risk of countervailing unfairness to the accused or the prosecution. No evidence had yet been adduced, and the principles of fairness and prevention of miscarriage of justice required discharge of the jury.

Court Disposition

Jury is discharged

Orders

  • ['Jury is discharged']