Citation: R v Steven Ray Hughes [2008] NSWDC 359
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 June 2008
Judge(s): Cogswell SC DCJ
Background
The accused stood trial before a jury in the District Court, with proceedings commencing on 26 May 2008. The trial was affected by a series of delays: a juror's illness caused one full day to be lost, a pre-existing commitment of the judge removed half a day, and a medical appointment by another juror cost a further full day.
The jury was sent out to deliberate on 5 June 2008. On 6 June, the jury sent a note indicating a possible deadlock and flagged that one juror needed to leave at 4 pm that day. The same note disclosed that one juror had a pre-booked holiday on the Monday and Tuesday of the following week.
Counsel for the accused applied to discharge the jury, arguing that the holiday-taking juror was not approaching their duties responsibly, and that this attitude may have infected the remaining jurors.
Legal Issues
- Whether a juror's request to take two days of pre-booked holiday during deliberations indicated an irresponsible attitude toward jury duties.
- Whether any such attitude had, or was likely to have, infected the other jurors.
- Whether the lapse of time and potential deadlock, combined with these circumstances, warranted discharge of the jury.
- Whether directions to the jury could adequately address any identified concerns.
Decision
Cogswell SC DCJ refused the application. The judge declined to conclude that taking a pre-booked holiday demonstrated a cavalier or irresponsible attitude. The court noted that the holiday must have been arranged in advance, as the jury had been warned of the possibility of the trial running into a second week, and the juror's unavailability had been flagged as early as 2 June 2008. It would have been reasonable for that juror to make such arrangements at any point up to the commencement of trial.
The judge also observed that jurors are generally unfamiliar with the procedural unpredictabilities of jury trials, including delays caused by illness or unexpectedly lengthy addresses and summing-up. That unfamiliarity was a relevant consideration in assessing whether the juror had acted improperly.
On the question of infection, the court found no evidence of an inappropriate attitude spreading to the broader jury. To the contrary, the jury's expressed preference to wait until all twelve members were present before resuming deliberations pointed to the jurors valuing the full composition of the panel, and by extension treating the holiday-taking juror as a full participant whose views mattered.
The court acknowledged concern about the five-day gap since deliberations began, noting that one of those days was a public holiday. Rather than discharge the jury, the judge considered it appropriate to give a direction acknowledging the lapse of time and the importance of refocusing on the task, along with a standard direction addressing the possibility of deadlock and a reminder about access to transcripts and further directions.
Orders Made
No formal orders were made in this decision. The application to discharge the jury was refused.
Key Takeaways
- A juror taking pre-booked leave during deliberations does not, without more, establish an irresponsible attitude toward jury duties, particularly where the holiday was arranged in advance and the trial's duration was uncertain.
- Jurors cannot be expected to have the same understanding of procedural delays and trial timelines as counsel and judges, and this is a relevant consideration when assessing whether a juror has acted improperly.
- The District Court found that the jury's preference to reconvene with all twelve members present was consistent with taking deliberations seriously, not with indifference.
- Discharge of the jury is not the only remedy available where delays have accumulated; appropriately framed directions can address concerns about distraction and the need to refocus.
- In dismissing the application, the court opted instead for a direction acknowledging the lapse of time, a standard deadlock direction, and a reminder about available materials, as proportionate responses to the circumstances.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation: None cited in the judgment.
Cases: None cited in the judgment. The discussion of the "Black direction" in the transcript refers to the standard practice in New South Wales of giving a direction to a potentially deadlocked jury (derived from Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44), though the case itself is not formally cited in the judgment.