Citation: R v Newson (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1166
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 June 2021
Judge: Ierace J
Background
The accused was on trial in a criminal matter that had commenced on 29 March 2021, running for approximately eight weeks before the jury retired to deliberate on 8 June 2021. The trial involved 61 witnesses, 110 exhibits (100 tendered by the Crown, 10 by the defence), and 23 jury notes over its course. The case against the accused was circumstantial in nature, and the evidence was substantial in volume.
After the jury had been deliberating for 25 hours across seven days without communicating any difficulties or requests to the Court, the defence made an application for the jury to be reminded of directions previously given on 7 and 8 June 2021. Those directions related to the onus and standard of proof, and to how juries should approach circumstantial evidence.
The defence submitted that the absence of any communication from the jury, combined with the complexity of the evidence and the length of deliberations, warranted a reminder of these fundamental principles. The Crown opposed the application.
Legal Issues
- Whether the jury should be recalled and reminded of earlier directions concerning the onus and standard of proof and the approach to circumstantial evidence, in circumstances where deliberations had continued for 25 hours over seven days without any communication from the jury.
Decision
Ierace J declined to make the order sought by the defence. His Honour accepted the Crown's position that the length of deliberations was unsurprising given the volume of material and the circumstantial nature of the case, including a two-day view that had formed part of the trial.
The Court observed that the jury had demonstrably been attentive throughout the trial and expressed confidence that the jury would seek assistance if they required it. His Honour noted that an absence of communication from the jury was not, in these circumstances, a cause for concern.
Ierace J held that the appropriate course was to leave the jury undisturbed unless and until they indicated a need for assistance or communicated that they had reached an impasse on unanimity. The application was refused.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court refused a defence application to recall the jury and repeat directions on onus, standard of proof, and circumstantial evidence, finding no sufficient basis to intervene in deliberations.
- Silence from a jury during deliberations does not, of itself, warrant judicial intervention, particularly where the trial involved a large volume of evidence and the case was circumstantial.
- A trial judge retains a discretion to leave the jury undisturbed during deliberations unless the jury signals a need for assistance or indicates an inability to reach a unanimous verdict.
- The length of jury deliberations must be assessed in context: 25 hours across seven days was considered unsurprising given a trial of approximately eight weeks involving 61 witnesses, 110 exhibits, and a two-day view.
- Judicial confidence in a jury's attentiveness and capability can inform a decision to decline an application for supplementary directions during deliberations.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No legislation or cases were cited in this decision.