Regina v Forbes [2004] NSWCCA 55

Regina v Forbes [2004] NSWCCA 55

Leave was refused because the Court was not persuaded that Hulme J was wrong to refuse to discharge the jury. The Border Mail material had limited circulation in Griffith, the Area News caption and photograph were matters capable of being dealt with by appropriate directions, and the application was made when the trial was almost completed. In the circumstances, including that the applicant would remain in custody on another matter, there was no overwhelming case of irremediable prejudice warranting intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act / Interlocutory Application During a Jury Trial Before Hulme J in the Supreme Court, Challenging Two Rulings Refusing to Discharge the Jury
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Appeal' 'jury Discharge' 'prejudicial Publicity' 'change of Venue' 'fair Trial' 'prior Conviction Publicity']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['interlocutory Appeal' 'jury Discharge' 'prejudicial Publicity' 'change of Venue' 'fair Trial' 'prior Conviction Publicity']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act / Interlocutory Application During a Jury Trial Before Hulme J in the Supreme Court, Challenging Two Rulings Refusing to Discharge the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act to challenge rulings refusing to discharge the jury.' 'Whether newspaper publications before and during trial created prejudice rendering the trial unfair.' 'Whether any prejudice from the publications could be cured by directions rather than discharge of the jury.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should intervene when the trial was almost completed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Court was not persuaded that Hulme J was wrong to refuse to discharge the jury. The Border Mail material had limited circulation in Griffith, the Area News caption and photograph were matters capable of being dealt with by appropriate directions, and the application was made when the trial was almost completed. In the circumstances, including that the applicant would remain in custody on another matter, there was no overwhelming case of irremediable prejudice warranting intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']