Citation: R v Hawi & ors (No 8) [2011] NSWSC 1654
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 May 2011
Judge(s): Hulme J
Background
This decision arose in a multi-accused criminal trial before the Supreme Court estimated to run for four to five months, with the possibility of extending to six months. Before jury selection commenced, the court considered whether to order the empanelling of additional jurors beyond the standard 12.
The application was procedural in nature, concerned with ensuring a sufficient number of jurors remained available to deliberate at the conclusion of what was expected to be a lengthy trial. No contested argument from the parties is recorded in the judgment.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial qualified as a prescribed proceeding under section 19(2) of the Jury Act 1977, allowing the court to order additional jurors
- Whether the selection of additional jurors was an appropriate means of ensuring sufficient jurors would remain at the verdict stage
- Whether adequate facilities existed to accommodate additional jurors
Decision
Issue 1: Whether the trial was a prescribed proceeding
Section 19(2) of the Jury Act 1977 permits a court to order up to three additional jurors where, among other things, the trial is of a kind prescribed by the regulations. No relevant regulations had been made at the time. Section 19(3) therefore operated as a transitional provision, deeming any trial likely to last more than three months to be a prescribed proceeding. Hulme J was satisfied that a trial estimated at four to five months (potentially six) plainly met that threshold.
Issue 2: Whether additional jurors were an appropriate means of ensuring sufficient jurors at verdict
The court accepted that, despite efforts to inform prospective jurors of the trial's likely length and to identify personal circumstances that might prevent full participation, unforeseen events such as illness could still reduce jury numbers during such a prolonged proceeding. Selecting additional jurors was therefore an appropriate safeguard.
Issue 3: Whether adequate facilities were available
Hulme J inspected the available courtroom and jury room facilities and was satisfied they were adequate to accommodate additional jurors alongside the standard 12.
Orders Made
- Three additional jurors to be selected for the jury in this trial, pursuant to section 19(2) of the Jury Act 1977
Key Takeaways
- Under section 19(3) of the Jury Act 1977, a trial likely to exceed three months in duration is automatically treated as a prescribed proceeding for the purposes of section 19(2), in the absence of applicable regulations.
- All three statutory conditions under section 19(2) must be satisfied before a court may order additional jurors: the trial must be a prescribed proceeding, the additional jurors must be an appropriate safeguard for jury sufficiency, and suitable facilities must be available.
- Unforeseen circumstances such as juror illness during a lengthy trial are a recognised basis for finding that additional jurors are an appropriate means of ensuring sufficient deliberating jurors remain at the verdict stage.
- The Jury Act 1977 allows for up to three additional jurors beyond the standard 12 in eligible criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court or District Court.
- This decision illustrates a straightforward procedural application of section 19, with the transitional deeming provision in section 19(3) doing significant practical work in the absence of regulations.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Jury Act 1977
Cases
- Not stated