R v Radju [2001] NSWCCA 103

R v Radju [2001] NSWCCA 103

Although the trial judge did not make express orders for discharge of a juror or for jury separation, his remarks and conduct amounted to implied orders, and the requirements of the Jury Act were satisfied. No procedural failure occurred that would justify quashing the convictions.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Wartha Radju
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Jury Procedures, Obtaining by Deception
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Jury Procedures Obtaining by Deception

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Wartha Radju

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to make express orders for discharge of a juror under s 22 Jury Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to make express orders for separation of the jury under s 54 Jury Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether such failures constituted a fundamental procedural error warranting the quashing of convictions

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge did not make express orders for discharge of a juror or for jury separation, his remarks and conduct amounted to implied orders, and the requirements of the Jury Act were satisfied. No procedural failure occurred that would justify quashing the convictions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed