DPP v Dupas (Ruling No 6)
[2007] VSC 257
•9 July 2007
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1533 of 2006
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| 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.
---
0
0
0