Citation: R v Williams (No. 7) [2025] NSWSC 1351
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 November 2025
Judge: Lonergan J
Background
This decision arose during a lengthy criminal trial, then on its 44th day of proceedings. The trial had been empanelled with more than the standard 12 jurors, providing a buffer against the need to discharge jurors before verdict.
Shortly before court commenced on the day prior to the decision, a juror fainted in the jury room and was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital. She was assessed and sent home that afternoon.
The following morning, the court received a medical certificate from the juror's treating general practitioner. The GP reported that the juror had experienced dizziness and syncope (fainting episodes) while on jury duty, required further investigation and potentially treatment, and requested that she be formally excused from jury service.
Legal Issues
- Whether the juror should be discharged under s 53B(a) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) on the basis that she had become too ill to continue serving
- Whether the trial should continue with a reduced jury under s 22 of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), and whether doing so would be unfair to any party
Decision
Lonergan J accepted the medical evidence without opposition from any party at the bar table. The GP's certificate, based on an examination conducted after the juror's hospital admission, provided sufficient medical opinion to satisfy the statutory test under s 53B(a): that the juror had become so ill as to be unlikely to be able to serve before a verdict was delivered. Accordingly, the juror was discharged.
After the discharge, 14 jurors remained. The judge noted that the advanced stage of the trial, with final addresses, summing-up and deliberations imminent, weighed in favour of continuing rather than aborting the proceedings. Lonergan J also acknowledged a possibility that a further juror might need to be discharged, which would reduce the panel to 13. Even accounting for that contingency, her Honour was satisfied it remained appropriate to continue.
Under s 22 of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), the court confirmed that the trial should proceed with the reduced number of jurors and that doing so was not unfair to any party.
Orders Made
- The juror was discharged pursuant to s 53B(a) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
- The trial was ordered to continue with 14 jurors pursuant to s 22 of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Key Takeaways
- Under s 53B(a) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), a juror may be discharged where the court is satisfied the juror has become so ill as to be unlikely to serve through to verdict; a GP's certificate issued following hospital assessment can satisfy that threshold.
- All parties' consent, or absence of opposition, to a juror's discharge is a relevant contextual factor, though the statutory test under s 53B(a) remains the operative one.
- Section 22 of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) permits a criminal trial to continue with a reduced jury; the Supreme Court here found no unfairness to any party in continuing with 14 jurors at day 44 of proceedings.
- The late stage of a lengthy trial is a material consideration when assessing whether discharge of a juror and continuation with a reduced panel is appropriate.
- Where the court has empanelled a larger-than-standard jury, the remaining buffer of additional jurors supports a finding that proceeding with the reduced number does not prejudice the parties.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 22 (continuation of trial with reduced jury)
- Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 53B(a) (discretionary discharge of juror on medical grounds)
Cases Cited
No cases were cited in the judgment.