DPP v Dupas (Ruling No 6)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1533 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PETER NORRIS DUPAS

---
Ruling No. 6

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	9 July 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dupas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 257

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – jury empanelment – occupations of prospective jurors –generic categories – s.36(1) Juries Act 2000.

---

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. 6

HIS HONOUR:

I am not persuaded that the court should vary its normal course that where a member of the jury panel says 'retired' or 'unemployed', that person is asked what was the previous occupation, but that otherwise, the occupation given is not further pursued as to particularity. That practice is consonant with the provisions of s.36(1) Juries Act 2000.

Mr Drake has submitted that it would be appropriate for the exercise of challenges that further specificity be sought of the generic categories of 'consultant' and of 'student'. I am unpersuaded to vary the normal rule, which is that occupational categories like those and numerous other generic categories like 'supervisor', are accepted without further inquiry. On the other hand, the categories ‘retired’ and ‘unemployed’ are not occupational categories.

Accordingly I decline Mr Drake's request for further specificity.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Dupas (Ruling No 6) involved the Director of Public Prosecutions, acting on behalf of the Crown, and the defendant, Dupas. The dispute centred on the empanelment of a jury for the defendant's murder trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether certain occupations of prospective jurors warranted their exclusion from the jury pool under section 36(1) of the Juries Act 2000. Specifically, the court needed to decide if a prospective juror's occupation could be considered a 'generic category' that should lead to automatic exclusion.

The court considered the language of section 36(1) of the Juries Act 2000, which requires the exclusion of prospective jurors if their occupation, whether full-time, part-time, or occasional, falls within a generic category deemed by the court to be unsuitable for jury service. The court examined whether the term 'generic category' should be interpreted broadly or narrowly. The court concluded that the term should be interpreted narrowly, meaning that only occupations that are inherently unsuitable for jury service should be excluded. The court found that the prospective juror's occupation did not fall into such a category, and therefore did not warrant exclusion.

Following this reasoning, the court ruled that the prospective juror in question was not to be excluded from the jury pool based on their occupation. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring a diverse and representative jury, while also upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality in the judicial process. The final outcome was that the prospective juror remained eligible to serve on the jury for the defendant's murder trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established