NH v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA)

The case of NH v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) concerned appeals by NH and Stakaj to the High Court of Australia following convictions for manslaughter. The central dispute arose from allegations that the jury, in delivering its verdicts, had made a mistake regarding the required majority for a "not guilty" verdict on the charge of murder before proceeding to consider the alternative charge of manslaughter. The Director of Public Prosecutions had applied to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, invoking the Court's original jurisdiction, to set aside the jury's verdicts. The Full Court had subsequently quashed the verdicts and ordered new trials.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the presumption of correctness attaching to jury verdicts could be rebutted in the circumstances presented, whether the Full Court had the power to reconsider perfected orders in its original jurisdiction, and whether the alleged mistake by the foreperson constituted a material irregularity leading to unlawful verdicts. Further questions concerned whether the foreperson's mistake and the jury's acquiescence amounted to an abuse of process, whether the Supreme Court possessed an inherent power to correct perfected orders in such situations, and the admissibility of statements made by jurors to impeach their own verdicts, distinguishing between a verdict and a judgment.

The High Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Full Court had erred in its approach. The Court reasoned that the Director of Public Prosecutions' application was brought in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that the inherent jurisdiction relied upon by the Full Court was a collection of powers in aid of jurisdiction, not a separate head of jurisdiction. The majority of the Full Court had considered the foreperson's affidavit and statements from other jurors, concluding that the foreperson's incorrect response regarding a majority "not guilty" verdict on the murder charge constituted a material irregularity, rendering the subsequent manslaughter verdicts unlawful under s 57 of the Juries Act. They further held that this irregularity, coupled with the jury's acquiescence, amounted to an abuse of process, justifying the exercise of the Court's inherent power to overturn the verdicts and order retrials.

The High Court set aside the orders of the Full Court, dismissing the Director of Public Prosecutions' applications and remitting the matters to the Full Court for further hearing on other grounds of appeal. The Court's decision effectively held that the requirements of s 57 of the Juries Act had not been met, and that the Full Court's reliance on its inherent jurisdiction to quash the verdicts was not warranted in these circumstances.