R v Bright - [2000] NSWCCA 258

Reported Decision: [2000] 114 A Crim R 466

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v M A BRIGHT [2000] NSWCCA 258

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60207/98

HEARING DATE(S): 10 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Marion Ann Bright

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Grove J at 2; Kirby J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/41/0210

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Knight DCJ

COUNSEL : P Hock (Crown)
G C Corr/C Everson (App)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
South Eastern Aboriginal Legal Service (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Practice and Procedure - Appeal - Contamination of Jury - Reasonable apprehension jury might not have brought an impartial and unprejudiced mind to resolution of issues

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s112(2); s114(1)(a)
Jury Act 1977 - s38(7)

CASES CITED:
Liversey v NSW Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288
Webb & Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41
R v Gibson [1999] NSWCCA 370

DECISION: Appeal allowed; Convictions quashed; New trial ordered

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60207/98

MEAGHER JA
GROVE J
KIRBY J

Tuesday 25 July 2000

REGINA v MARION ANN BRIGHT

JUDGMENT
1   MEAGHER JA: I agree with Kirby J.

*****

2   GROVE: I agree with Kirby J.

*****

3   KIRBY J: In February 1998 the appellant, Mrs Marion Bright, stood trial in Goulburn before his Honour Judge Knight, and a Jury.
4   The appellant faced two charges. They arose out of an incident on 20 July 1996. It was alleged that she was one of a number of individuals who had encircled a house in Goulburn, yelling abuse and making threats against its occupants. Objects, including pot plants, were thrown through the windows. Ultimately, the front door was broken down, and the house invaded. Those in the house included a woman, Mrs Mallott, and her small children. They fled in terror, and hid in the rear of the house. A tomahawk was used to chop through a bedroom door, before the group retreated.
5 The charges against the appellant were, first, that she had broken into a dwelling house, and had committed a felony therein, namely, malicious damage to the house (s112(2) Crimes Act, 1900), and, further, that she was armed with a weapon, namely a tomahawk, with intent to commit an assault (s114(1)(a) Crimes Act, 1900). Mrs Bright pleaded not guilty to both charges. Her defence was essentially an alibi.
6 The trial began on 9 February 1998. In accordance with the requirements of s38(7) of the Jury Act, 1977, his Honour invited the Crown to identify witnesses who would be called during the trial. Upon the basis of that information, a number of jurors sought to be excused. In a country town, even a large centre such as Goulburn, that is not surprising. A jury was then empanelled, and the trial commenced.
7   On Wednesday 18 February 1998, the jury retired to consider its verdict at 12.21 pm. It returned at…

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.

Continue reading R v Bright

Details

AGLC: Regina v M a Bright [2000] NSWCCA 258
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 258
Decision Date: 25 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bright involved the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury of several serious criminal charges. The appeal was based on the argument that the jury had been contaminated, leading to a reasonable apprehension that they would not be able to bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues in the case. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the contamination of the jury was such that it created a reasonable apprehension that the jury might not have brought an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues in the case. This required the court to consider the nature and extent of the contamination, as well as the potential impact on the jury's impartiality. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in dealing with the contamination.

In delivering the judgment of the court, the justices considered the evidence and submissions presented on the issue of jury contamination. The court found that the contamination was significant and had the potential to impact the impartiality of the jury. However, the court also considered the steps taken by the trial judge to mitigate the effects of the contamination, including giving directions to the jury and considering the possibility of a mistrial. The court concluded that, while the contamination was serious, the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately and there was no reasonable apprehension that the jury would not be able to bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld. The court's judgment serves as an important reminder of the critical role played by juries in the criminal justice system and the importance of ensuring their impartiality. It also highlights the need for trial judges to carefully consider any potential contamination of the jury and take appropriate steps to mitigate its effects.

Orders