R v Godfrey (No 5)

Godfrey was charged with the murder of a woman. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Godfrey sought the discharge of the jury on the basis that the Crown expert had omitted certain evidence from their report, which was not considered by the accused’s expert forensic pathologist. The omission caused the accused’s expert opinion to appear inconsistent, leading to the risk that the jury might prefer the evidence of one expert over the other, potentially resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court was required to determine whether the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice was present due to the omitted evidence, and whether this warranted the discharge of the jury. The court examined whether the omitted evidence was material to the expert opinions, and whether the accused's expert could have relied on it. The court also considered whether the inconsistency in the expert opinions was significant enough to affect the jury's decision.

The court held that the omitted evidence was not critical to the experts' opinions and that the accused's expert could have reasonably relied on it. The court found that the inconsistency in the expert opinions did not reach the threshold of a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for the discharge of the jury was dismissed.

The court ordered that the trial would continue with the existing jury.