Director of Public Prosecutions v Roberts (Ruling No 11)

[2022] VSC 120

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0324

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
JASON JOSEPH ROBERTS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 March 2022
DATE OF RULING:	8 March 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Roberts (Ruling No 11)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 120

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – Jury – Application by juror to be discharged – Application refused – Juries Act 2000 s 43.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Ihle QC with Mr G Hayward and Ms S Lenthall	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Hallowes SC with Mr M McGrath	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

1. The application by this juror does raise a difficult question, and I must say that my perception of him when I questioned him and spoke with him is that he very much appears to be a person who is simply having second thoughts.  He has stable employment and there was no suggestion, nor should there be that that employment is at risk.  In fact, it seems he has been employed by the same employer, his uncle, for some four years plus to complete his apprenticeship.

1. While he may have some financial concerns over the duration of the trial, it is not put that he would be in any dire financial straits.  I did not want to pry too far into his domestic issues, but it appears that they had been around for some time, and while there might have been a further event in them last evening, it does not seem to me that it is something that ought not to have persuaded him earlier to have sought to be excused.

1. The fact is that this juror, like the previous one, had plenty of opportunities to be excused.  He was not forced to be a juror at all, given the circumstances in which the Juries Commissioner effectively puts together the panel and the circumstance in which I conducted the empanelment, and I think I made absolutely clear that people, for example, with work issues or personal issues had every right to apply to be excused.  And he was given two opportunities to do that.

1. He only first raised that issue and any problem with Mr Dalton at lunchtime today, which coincidentally is after I had discharged another juror. It seems to me that clearly this juror does not fit within sub-paras (a), (b) or (c) of s 43.[1] The question whether he fits within s 43(d) is another issue, but it seems to me that whilst this man does not want to remain on the jury, many others are probably in the same boat, but I do not consider it has been demonstrated to me that he should not continue to act as a juror.

   [1]Juries Act 2000.

1. He seems to be an intelligent person, he is able to focus on my questions, and I am sure when the position is made plain to him, he must continue, that he will be able to continue his role and to perform that role adequately and properly as he has sworn to do.  I therefore will reject his application to be discharged as a juror.

---