Director of Public Prosecutions v Baker (Ruling No. 3) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1637 of 2008
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
NEIL ALLAN BAKER

Ruling No. 3

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Ballarat
DATE OF RULING:	29 October 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Baker (Ruling No. 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 628

Criminal law and procedure – trial – murder – application by defence for discharge of jury during prosecution final address – application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the accused	Mr M Rochford	Victoria Legal Aid
-------------

!Undefined Bookmark, I

Ruling No. 3

HIS HONOUR:

I refuse the application to discharge the jury. I consider there is no degree of need to do so, and certainly no high degree of need, as to the observations and analysis given by Mr Gibson in his final address, particularly at about 12.40 pm, before lunch, which I have noted. The transcript is coming through.
I will give my reasons with precise expression rather than now hold the jury up. They have already been held up now 40 minutes since lunch, and I will keep the trial moving.

---

1 T

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Baker, the respondent was on trial for the murder of a person in Victoria. The court heard arguments from the respondent's legal team, who applied for the jury to be discharged during the prosecution's final address, citing an alleged irregularity. The application was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have discharged the jury from their duty during the prosecution's final address. The defence argued that an irregularity had occurred, which warranted the discharge of the jury. The prosecution countered that the application was without merit and should be dismissed.

The court found that there was no irregularity that would warrant the discharge of the jury. The respondent's legal team had not provided any evidence to support their claim of irregularity. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in refusing the application to discharge the jury. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of evidence presented by the defence to support their application.

The court dismissed the application by the respondent's legal team for the discharge of the jury. The trial continued, and the jury was able to hear the prosecution's final address without interruption.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Baker (Ruling No. 3)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established