R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 7)

Two individuals, Afu and Caleo, were standing trial for the murder of a person. The Crown Prosecutor made a statement in their opening address, referencing a sexual relationship between Afu and a witness who was 15 years old at the time. This led the defendants to apply for the jury's discharge, arguing that this mention caused incurable prejudice. The High Court considered whether the reference to the sexual relationship with a minor amounted to such prejudice that it would prevent a fair trial.

The court had to determine whether the mention of the sexual relationship between Afu and a minor witness in the Crown Prosecutor's opening address constituted incurable prejudice, warranting the discharge of the jury. They also had to consider the effect of this mention on the potential for a fair trial, as well as the legal standards for determining prejudice in a criminal trial.

The High Court found that the mention of the sexual relationship between Afu and the minor witness did not amount to incurable prejudice. The court reasoned that while the mention of the relationship was not ideal, it did not prevent the jury from delivering a fair and impartial verdict. The court held that the trial judge had adequately addressed the potential prejudice in their directions to the jury, ensuring that the jury could still reach a fair and unbiased decision. As a result, the application for the jury's discharge was refused.

No specific final orders were mentioned in the judgment. However, the refusal of the application for discharge meant that the trial could proceed as planned. The jury continued to deliberate and deliver their verdict in the murder trial of Afu and Caleo.