Citation: R v Sumpton (No. 3) [2014] NSWSC 1556
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 October 2014
Judge(s): Hamill J
Background
A criminal trial had been running for approximately six days before a jury, with an additional 11 days including pre-trial hearings. During proceedings at the Grafton Courthouse, defence counsel received an anonymous handwritten note found under the courthouse registry door on the morning of 15 October 2014, apparently placed there the previous afternoon between 4.00 pm and 5.30 pm, which was the same day the jury was empanelled.
The note contained a list of addresses with one circled, associated with a named prosecution witness. It included handwritten comments identifying that person as a close associate of the accused in the period before the alleged murder and naming him as a suspect. Both defence counsel and the Crown Prosecutor had been attempting to address the matter without involving the trial judge or disrupting the proceedings.
The concern shared by both parties was that the note's apparent level of detail about the evidence, exceeding what had been publicly reported in local media, raised the possibility that it had come from a juror. This created a potential threat to the integrity of the trial.
Legal Issues
- Whether the contents and circumstances of the anonymous note raised a sufficient basis to order an investigation into possible juror misconduct under s 73A of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
- Whether the investigation could be practically conducted given the limited resources of the local sheriff's office at Grafton on the day
Decision
Hamill J agreed with the joint position of both counsel that an investigation should be directed under s 73A of the Jury Act 1977. His Honour acknowledged that while juror involvement was possible, there was no firm evidence to support it. Nonetheless, the potential consequences for the trial and any subsequent proceedings made an investigation appropriate.
The court noted the practical constraints: the local sheriff was alone at Grafton and occupied with managing the jury, making it impossible for her to immediately review CCTV footage from outside the courthouse. The possibility of assistance from the Lismore or Coffs Harbour sheriff's offices was identified as a workable solution.
His Honour initially framed the direction as an order but revised the terminology on closer review of s 73A, substituting "request" for "direct" to align with the precise language of the statutory provision.
Later the same day, a sheriff from Lismore attended, located the relevant CCTV footage, and burned it to a DVD. The footage captured the person delivering the note. Both parties viewed the footage in open court and agreed the person depicted was not a member of the jury. No further application was made and the trial continued.
Orders Made
- The court made a request (pursuant to s 73A of the Jury Act 1977) for the sheriff to investigate the delivery of the note (MFI 13) and envelope (MFI 12), specifically directed initially to reviewing CCTV footage outside the Grafton Courthouse, with a further report to the court to allow the parties to view that footage.
Key Takeaways
- Section 73A of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) empowers a court to request, rather than direct, the sheriff to investigate conduct that may constitute improper juror behaviour affecting a verdict.
- The correct statutory terminology under s 73A is "request," not "direct"; Hamill J revised his order mid-judgment to reflect this distinction after closer review of the provision.
- A level of detail in an anonymous communication that exceeds publicly reported information can provide a sufficient basis to trigger an investigation into potential juror misconduct, even where no direct evidence of juror involvement exists.
- The investigation here was resolved efficiently within a single court day through inter-office sheriff cooperation, without permanently disrupting the trial.
- Where CCTV footage establishes that the author of an anonymous note is not a juror and both parties are satisfied of that fact, no further formal application or order may be necessary for the trial to continue.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 73A
Cases cited: None cited in the judgment.