R v A1 (No. 3)

In the case of R v A1 (No. 3), the accused faced criminal charges, and a dispute arose regarding the composition of the jury during the trial. The Crown and the accused jointly sought the discharge of a juror who was required to be absent for a week due to a family funeral overseas. This absence necessitated a departure from the standard jury composition of 12 members, and the central issue before the court was whether the trial could proceed with a jury of 11 members, as per section 53B(d) of the Jury Act 1977. The court had to determine whether the absence of one juror, due to a compelling personal reason, justified the continuation of the trial with an 11-member jury.

The court considered the statutory provisions of the Jury Act 1977 and previous case law to address the legal issues. It was necessary to assess whether the absence of the juror constituted a "good cause" within the meaning of the Act, and if the trial could proceed with an 11-member jury without compromising the fairness or integrity of the proceedings. The court also weighed the rights of the accused to a full jury trial against the practicalities of maintaining a quorum during the juror's absence.

The court concluded that the juror's absence for a family funeral qualified as "good cause" under section 53B(d) of the Jury Act 1977. It found that discharging the absent juror and proceeding with an 11-member jury did not undermine the fairness or integrity of the trial. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the accused's right to a fair trial with the need to manage unavoidable circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered that the trial would continue with a jury of 11 members, thereby allowing the proceedings to proceed without undue delay.

The final orders of the court were that the absent juror be discharged, and the trial would continue with an 11-member jury. This decision ensured that the trial could proceed in a timely manner while still upholding the principles of fairness and justice.