Citation: Qaumi and Ors (No 17) (Additional Jurors) [2016] NSWSC 338
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 March 2016
Judge(s): Hamill J
Background
Five accused faced a combined total of 24 charges in a lengthy criminal trial. Each accused was represented by counsel, and the prosecution brief ran to approximately 40 to 50 lever arch folders of material, including evidence from 13 informant witnesses, medical and forensic experts, and a substantial volume of telecommunications cell tower evidence.
The accused had sought a trial by judge alone under section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), but Hamill J refused that application on 24 March 2016. Following that refusal, the Crown Prosecutor applied for an order to empanel additional jurors under section 19 of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW).
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial was one to which section 19(3) of the Jury Act 1977 applied, based on its expected length.
- Whether selecting additional jurors was an appropriate means of ensuring sufficient jurors would remain when the jury was required to deliberate, satisfying section 19(2)(b) of the Jury Act 1977.
- How many additional jurors, if any, should be ordered.
Decision
Issue 1: Whether the trial fell within the scope of section 19(3)
The court considered the volume of material, the number of parties and legal representatives, and the length estimates provided by counsel. The Crown Prosecutor estimated four months or more, four defence counsel estimated four months, and one estimated approximately six months including deliberation time (at [6]). The court accepted that the trial was likely to exceed three months and was therefore satisfied that section 19(3) applied (at [7]).
Issue 2: Whether additional jurors were appropriate under section 19(2)(b)
The court found that, given the anticipated length of the trial, experience indicated that one or more jurors was likely to become ill or otherwise unable to continue. Selecting additional jurors was therefore an appropriate means of ensuring sufficient jurors would remain to consider the verdict (at [8]).
Issue 3: Number of additional jurors
The court noted that the courtroom and jury deliberation room were both specifically designed to accommodate 15 jurors, with 15 chairs provided in each space. Taking all matters into account, the court ordered that three additional jurors, the maximum permitted under section 19(2), be selected (at [9]-[10]).
Orders Made
- Order pursuant to section 19(2) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) that three additional jurors be selected for the jury in this trial.
Key Takeaways
- Under section 19(2) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), a court may order up to three additional jurors where satisfied both that the trial falls within the applicable threshold under section 19(3) and that the selection of additional jurors is an appropriate means of ensuring sufficient jurors will remain to deliberate (at [7]-[8]).
- A trial estimated to run for four months or more, involving five accused, 24 charges, and a prosecution brief of 40 to 50 lever arch folders, was found to meet the length threshold required to engage section 19(3) (at [5]-[7]).
- The court relied on practical experience that lengthy trials create a real risk of juror attrition through illness or other incapacity, treating this as a factor supporting the ordering of additional jurors (at [8]).
- Physical infrastructure of the courtroom, specifically whether the jury box and deliberation room can accommodate additional jurors, was treated as a relevant practical consideration in determining how many additional jurors to order (at [9]).
- The maximum of three additional jurors was ordered, reflecting both the anticipated duration and complexity of the trial and the court's physical capacity to accommodate them (at [10]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
- Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases
- Not stated