R v Arnott (Ruling No. 1)

Do Not Send for Reporting

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1510 of 2005

THE QUEEN

RUSSELL LAURENCE ARNOTT

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	18 December 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Arnott (Ruling No. 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 523

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Jury – Discharge of one juror – whether balance of jury should be discharged.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr J Desmond	Doogue & O’Brien
HER HONOUR:

Application has been made for the discharge of the jury in circumstances in which one juror has been discharged.
The power of the court to discharge the jury should only be exercised where there is the requisite high degree of need (see Winsor v R (1886) LR 1 QB 390, per Earle CJ at 394). The court has the power under s.43 of the Juries Act to discharge a juror. It is implicit in s.44(3) that a criminal trial may continue after the discharge of a single juror.
The trial is well advanced. It was estimated that the Crown case would have been presented by Friday last and it is now anticipated that the Crown case will finish today.
Counsel for the defence expressed concerns about the discharged juror mingling with and communicating with other jurors after her discharge, but Mr Straughan my tipstaff has told the court that he escorted her to the door shortly after the jury returned to the jury room and was with her in the meantime. Counsel for the defence has raised concerns about the possible communication between the discharged juror and other members of the jury as to how she intended to obtain her discharge from the jury. He expressed the view that such a communication might reduce the seriousness of the role of the juror. Insofar as he is concerned about the jurors in this case, I do not regard the possibility of such a communication as likely to have any deleterious effect on the performance of their functions by the remaining jurors.
In any event, as senior counsel for the prosecution pointed out, the juror at all times requested that the nature of the communication received from the doctor should not be disclosed to her fellow jurors and she was questioned about her situation in their absence.
When she was discharged the remaining jurors were only told that it was for medical reasons, and she showed signs of distress when she was being discharged in their presence. Insofar as I could judge, there was no indication given in the court that she treated the matter as trivial or did not regard her obligations as a juror seriously.
In all the circumstances, counsel for the defence has failed to show the requisite high degree of need for the discharge of the jury. I reject the application.

---

In the case of R v Arnott, the defendant was charged with an offence under the Criminal Code. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the jury was required to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. During the trial, one juror became ill and was unable to continue serving, leading to the court's consideration of whether the remaining jurors should continue or if the entire jury should be discharged.

The legal issue before the court was whether, in the event of a juror's illness that prevents them from continuing their service, the remaining jurors should be discharged to maintain the integrity of the trial process. The court needed to weigh the principles of fairness and the right to a trial by an impartial jury against the potential prejudice that might result from discharging the jury mid-trial.

The court considered the legal precedent and determined that discharging the remaining jurors was not necessary, provided that the jury could still function effectively and impartially. The court held that the balance of the jury could continue if they were capable of proceeding without the ill juror. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process and the potential prejudice to the defendant if the trial had to be restarted. The court concluded that discharging the remaining jurors would only be appropriate if their impartiality could not be assured. Ultimately, the court decided that the trial could proceed with the remaining jurors, provided that their impartiality was not compromised.

No further orders were made by the court, and the trial proceeded with the remaining jurors.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established