R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 4) - [2020] NSWSC 1940

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 4) [2020] NSWSC 1940
Hearing dates: 28 February 2020
Date of orders: 28 February 2020
Decision date: 28 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
Discharge of juror under s 53B(b) and s 54B(d)

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – discharge of juror – conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – conduct of a juror observed by Court Officer – reasonable apprehension of bias of a juror – inquiries by juror concerning the accused’s transport to court proceedings – inquiries by juror concerning whether the juror could make contact with the accused at the conclusion of the trial – juror’s behaviour in jury smoking area – s 55D(a) Jury Act - examination of juror pursuant to s 55D(a) – s 68C Jury Act – juror’s behaviour during questioning by the Court – impartiality of a juror – optimal position that a jury of 12 will hear and determine criminal charges – s 53B(b) Jury Act – s 53B(d) Jury Act – ability of juror to perform his functions

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Darren Mohr (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
M England/C McGorey (Crown)
G Brady SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Crown)
McGirr Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/376756
Publication restriction: Judgment previously restricted pending finalisation of all co-accused trials and related appeals.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

HER HONOUR: An issue has arisen this morning on what is the 17th day of the trial proceedings against the accused, Darren Mohr, on a charge of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug. The issue concerns the conduct of a juror and whether or not some conduct of the juror which has been observed by a Court Officer is such as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, such that the juror should be discharged.
The information that came to the Court from the Court Officer was to the effect that one juror had made inquiries of the Court Officer concerning the accused. Those inquiries were, firstly, as to his method or means of transport to and from court each day and, secondly, as to whether at the conclusion of the trial proceedings, the juror would be able to make contact with and meet up with the accused.
There was some further information, although of much lesser significance, to the effect that the juror's conduct in the confines of the jury's smoking area was unusual and such as perhaps to give rise to some concern as to his understanding of the seriousness of his task. That consisted of some information that the juror, during smoking breaks, lies at full length on the ground in an external although gated laneway, and stares at the sky.
I raised the information this morning with Counsel and discussed with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 4) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 1940
Decision Date: 28 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 4) involved a complex criminal matter in which the respondent faced charges related to the importation of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug. The central issue before the court was whether the trial should proceed with a particular juror, given concerns regarding the juror's impartiality and conduct. The High Court was tasked with determining if the juror's actions warranted a discharge and a consequent impact on the trial's integrity.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Jury Act, specifically sections 53B, 55D(a), and 68C. The court needed to assess whether the juror's inquiries about the accused's transport, potential contact with the accused post-trial, and behaviour in the jury smoking area created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Additionally, the court had to consider the juror's conduct during examination and their overall ability to remain impartial and perform their functions without prejudice.

The court found that the juror's conduct did indeed give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This was due to the juror's inquiries and overall behaviour, which indicated a potential lack of impartiality. The court emphasised the importance of a jury of 12 being able to hear and determine the charges without any bias or preconception. The examination of the juror under section 55D(a) and their behaviour during questioning, as per section 68C, further reinforced the conclusion that the juror was not fit to continue with the trial. Consequently, the court ruled that the juror should be discharged.

The final orders of the court mandated that the juror be discharged, ensuring the trial would proceed with an impartial jury. The court underscored the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, particularly in criminal matters where the presumption of innocence is paramount. The decision reaffirmed the importance of stringent measures to uphold the impartiality of jurors in high-stakes criminal trials.

Orders