DPP v Dupas (Ruling No 5)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1533 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PETER NORRIS DUPAS

---
Ruling No. 5

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	6 July 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dupas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 256

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – jury empanelment – empanelment by number – s. 31(3) Juries Act2000 – considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr C. Hillman SC Mr A. Lewis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Drake Mr M. Regan	Victoria Legal Aid

---

Ruling No. 5

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Drake has rightly focussed upon one particular point which I think does support his submission but otherwise I am unpersuaded by his submission. The point that he has relied upon is that the jury will be told that the accused has two prior convictions for murder and that that is an exceptional matter. I agree. Mr Drake then submitted that the combination of that exceptional circumstance with the procedure of calling the jury panel by number rather than name could engender in the jury's mind an apprehension that they are at some risk from the accused who has prior convictions for murder.

I do not agree with Mr Drake that jurors expect to be called by name. It is certainly the expectation of the Criminal Bar but I do not think it is the way courts generally, that is to say the County Court and the Supreme Court, are run. In the modern world, jurors expect, and wish, to be called by number. I say to each panel that is the modern way of doing it; that it has nothing to do with the particular case and is the way we do it generally; and the panel nods and we just proceed. It is important, particularly in view of Mr Drake's valid point that the information to the jury of the accused’s two prior convictions for murder is exceptional, that the jury know that the numbering system is routine and is nothing to do with the accused and I will tell the panel that that is so in this case.

I think numbers is the proper way to proceed. There is plenary power to do so under the Act. Section 31(3) Juries Act 2000 specifies “for security or other reasons”. Mr Drake's point of statutory construction should not stand in the way of the good reason that in a modern community, it is appropriate that juries are called by number. They are citizens. They are entitled to impersonal treatment and to anonymity. Finally, I must say I do not agree again, with respect, with the Criminal Bar, who seem to want names announced regularly. I think a jury that feels confident is a good jury for an accused; and a jury feels more confident with numbers than with names. I think it is better for everyone, including an accused, that a jury feels confident.

I consider that the proper procedure is to have members of the jury panel called by numbers and that is what I direct.

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Dupas, Ruling No 5, was heard before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Dupas, was charged with murder, and the issue before the court was whether the process of jury empanelment, specifically the method of empanelment by number, complied with the statutory requirements set out in section 31(3) of the Juries Act 2000. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's approach to selecting the jury met the legislative criteria and preserved the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

The court examined whether the trial judge's method of empanelment by number adhered to the statutory provisions and ensured that the jury selection process was conducted in a manner that was free from any form of bias or manipulation. The court considered the legislative intent behind section 31(3) and the practical implications of the empanelment process on the trial's fairness. The court concluded that the judge's approach did not contravene the statutory requirements and was consistent with the legislative intent to maintain an impartial and fair trial process.

The court found that the trial judge's method of empanelment by number was in compliance with the provisions of section 31(3) of the Juries Act 2000, as it did not introduce any bias or unfairness into the selection process. The court held that the statutory requirements were met and that the trial judge's actions were appropriate and did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. As such, the court determined that the jury empanelment process was valid, and the trial could proceed without further issue regarding the jury selection.

No further orders were made by the court in this ruling. The case proceeded to the trial on the merits of the murder charge against the defendant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established