R v Ambrosius (No 2)

The case of R v Ambrosius (No 2) involved the defendant, Ambrosius, and the Crown. The dispute centred around the interpretation of section 55C of the Jury Act 1977, specifically whether the "transcript of evidence" provided to a jury during deliberations should include the closing addresses of counsel. This matter came before the court as a result of the defendant's appeal against a conviction. The central legal issue was whether the closing addresses of counsel, as part of the "evidence" for the purposes of section 55C, should be made available to the jury for their consideration during deliberations. The court was required to determine the extent of the term "evidence" in the context of the statute.

The court applied the decision in R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54, which had previously addressed the issue of what constitutes "evidence" in this context. The court found that the closing addresses of counsel were not part of the evidence that should be made available to the jury. The reasoning was that such addresses are not factual evidence presented during the trial but rather persuasive arguments by the parties aimed at interpreting and applying the evidence. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between factual evidence and the legal arguments made by counsel. Consequently, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to supply the transcript of closing addresses to the jury during deliberations. This decision upheld the integrity of the jury's role in determining the facts of the case based solely on the presented evidence and not on the persuasive arguments made by counsel.

The court's decision was grounded in the necessity to preserve the impartiality and independence of the jury. By excluding closing addresses from the transcript provided to the jury, the court ensured that the jury's deliberations would be based on the evidence presented and not influenced by the legal arguments. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that the jury's function is to assess the facts, not to engage with the advocacy presented by the parties. The court's decision in this matter provided clarity on the scope of "evidence" under section 55C of the Jury Act 1977, affirming that closing addresses are not to be included in the transcript provided to the jury.