R v Fakhreddine

[2023] NSWSC 1423

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Fakhreddine [2023] NSWSC 1423
Hearing dates:	14 November 2023
Date of orders:	14 November 2023
Decision date:	14 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Harrison CJ at CL
Decision:	Juror discharged
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – murder – discharge of a juror – where juror a contract worker and offered work set to start shortly and within trial estimate – where focus on personal matters impairs ability to discharge functions as a juror
Legislation Cited:	Jury Act 1977 (NSW) ss 53B
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Naji Fakhreddine (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: S Traynor (Crown) J Ellis (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) One Group Legal (Accused)
File Number(s):	2021/75628
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE jUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: Earlier in these proceedings I received a note from an individual juror, which I marked as jury note 9, in which this juror indicated that he or she was a contract worker and had been offered work beginning in Queensland commencing on 20 November this year. That juror asked whether or not I considered the trial would go beyond 17 November, which I note for completeness is this coming Friday, and whether or not that juror could in the circumstances be excused.

2. As the transcript will reveal, I took an expectant approach earlier, indicating that if a point arrived in the trial where it appeared that it would proceed beyond this Friday, I would excuse that juror if it seemed probable that the course of the trial would frustrate the employment arrangements that that juror wished to complete.

3. In the events that have occurred, in consultation with counsel, if not otherwise, it seems apparent that this case will not end this week. Accordingly, I have exercised the discretion given to a trial judge in circumstances such as the present by section 53B of the Jury Act 1977 to discharge that juror. I have done so upon the basis that it appears to me that the employment arrangements that this juror wishes to put in place may well affect that juror's ability to perform the functions of a juror and that he or she should not continue to act as such.

4. In further explanation of that opinion, it seems to me there is a likelihood that any juror, troubled by a concern that he or she may be unable to engage in an offer of remunerative employment, may well be distracted sufficiently during the remaining course of the trial if it extended into the period of the anticipated employment, and in that sense may not be able to perform the functions of a juror. It was in those circumstances that this juror was discharged by me today.

5. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that fifteen jurors were originally empanelled for this trial, I am satisfied that the discharge of this juror does not give rise to a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice having regard to the reduced number of jurors who now remain.

**********

Decision last updated: 21 March 2025