Citation: R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1047
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 June 2011
Judge(s): James J
Background
The accused was standing trial on criminal charges in proceedings brought by the Commonwealth. By the date of this ruling, the trial had reached its 68th day and was in its fifteenth week, having already exceeded the maximum estimate of 14 weeks that had been given to jurors at empanelment.
The jury sent a detailed written note to the court expressing serious concerns about the personal and financial hardship they were experiencing as a result of the trial's length. Individual jurors described being made redundant, losing job opportunities, facing housing difficulties, managing chronic health conditions, missing pre-booked holidays, and struggling to care for children. The jury noted that morale was low across the entire panel.
Defence counsel applied for a discharge of the jury based on the contents of that note. The Crown opposed the application.
Legal Issues
- Whether the jury's hardship and low morale had reached a level that required the trial to be aborted by discharging the jury
- Whether the jury's distress would adversely affect their ability to properly receive and consider the evidence in the defence case
- Whether the jury, when deliberating, would be tempted to hasten their verdicts to end their hardship rather than deliberate fully and properly
Decision
James J accepted without reservation the truth of every assertion made by the jury in their note. He acknowledged that the jurors had been given time estimates that had turned out to be substantial under-estimates, and that the matters causing them concern were entirely legitimate.
Defence counsel advanced two primary arguments: first, that juror distress would impair proper reception of the defence evidence, particularly given that the accused's evidence would revisit material already covered at length during the Crown case; second, that jurors would be tempted to rush their deliberations when the time came. His Honour took both concerns seriously.
However, James J declined to discharge the jury. A critical factor was that after discussions with counsel following receipt of the note, it emerged that the further examination-in-chief of the accused could be completed in days rather than the seven additional weeks the jury had feared. The Crown's cross-examination and addresses from both parties were estimated to conclude by late July, with the trial overall likely finishing by mid-August.
James J concluded that informing the jury of this revised estimate would provide substantial relief. He also observed that the jury's conduct throughout had been exemplary, that not a single day had been lost to juror illness, and that the jurors had demonstrated close and sustained attention to the proceedings. He expressed confidence that the jury would remain true to their oaths and would deliberate for as long as the evidence required.
Orders Made
• Application for discharge of the jury is refused
Key Takeaways
- Refusing the discharge application, the Supreme Court held that juror hardship, even when serious and widespread across the panel, does not automatically warrant a discharge of the jury in a complex criminal trial.
- The critical distinction drawn was between jurors expressing that they could not sustain their hardship "for an indefinite period" and jurors stating that they were no longer able or willing to continue serving at all.
- A concrete revised estimate of the trial's remaining length was treated as a significant mitigating measure, capable of substantially relieving the anxiety and distress that had prompted the jury's note.
- Where a jury has demonstrated exemplary conduct throughout a long trial, including consistent attendance and close attention to proceedings, a court may draw on those observations when assessing the likelihood that the jury will continue to perform its function properly.
- The court acknowledged that providing accurate time estimates to jurors at empanelment is a matter of real practical importance, noting that the jury expressly stated they would have adjusted their lives had they received a more accurate estimate from the outset.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No legislation or cases were cited in the judgment text or metadata provided.