Legal Research
Cases
R v Goodall

R v Goodall

Case [2007] VSCA 63 13 April 2007

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 316 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v
DAVID GOODALL

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN AP, NEAVE and REDLICH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 June 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 April 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 63

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Juror’s experience as a victim of a crime similar to that being tried – Juror distressed - Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias arose - Discharge of juror - Whether remainder of the jury contaminated and should have been discharged – Whether inquiry of jury through foreman was appropriate – Application dismissed – Juries Act 2000 (Vic) s 43

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	C D Traill Lawyers

BUCHANAN AP:

I agree with Redlich JA.

NEAVE JA:

I agree with Redlich JA that the application for leave to appeal should be refused, for the reasons he gives. I wish only to add a few additional remarks on the main ground of appeal, which is based on the proposition that a juror cannot be impartial if he or she has experience which bears on the issues which arise at trial.

I do not accept the submission that a person who has had a particular life experience cannot serve on a jury in a trial which concerns matters to which that experience is relevant. In this case the argument, put simply, amounts to the generalisation that victims of sexual assault are incapable of bringing an objective mind to the issues to be resolved in the trial of an accused for sexual offences, while other members of the jury who have not had such an experience are capable of doing so.[1] It should not be assumed that a person who has been sexually assaulted is any more likely to be prejudiced against the accused than other jurors.
[1]Compare the argument that a Tribunal was incapable of exercising an impartial mind because the presiding member was five months pregnant and women’s decision-making capacity was affected by pregnancy. This was rejected by the Supreme Court in GTB Nominees Pty Ltd v Uniting Church Property Trust in Australia and City of Kew, discussed in a Note in (1989) 14 Alternative Law Journal 41.

It is to be expected that juries will, at times, include persons who have been victims of crimes, just as they will include people who have had no experience of crime. As Professor Martha Minow points out in an excellent article on bias and impartiality, the purpose of selecting juries from a cross-section of the community is intended to ensure they bring a variety of perspectives and experiences to the task of fact-finding. In her words:

“We want ... juries to be objective about the facts and the questions of guilt and innocence but committed to building upon what they already know about the world, … and human beings.”[2]

[2]Martha…

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 Goodall

Details

AGLC: R v Goodall [2007] VSCA 63
Case: [2007] VSCA 63
Decision Date: 13 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Goodall involved a criminal conviction where the defendant challenged the impartiality of the jury that convicted him. The core dispute was whether the discharge of a juror, who had been a victim of a similar crime, led to an apprehension of bias that rendered the trial unfair. Additionally, the defendant questioned whether the remainder of the jury was contaminated by this juror’s discharge and whether an inquiry through the foreman was appropriate.

The legal issues addressed by the court included whether the juror's experience and the subsequent discharge created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court also examined whether the remaining jury members were potentially influenced by the discharge of one juror, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Another issue was whether the method of inquiring about the jury's impartiality through the foreman was appropriate under the circumstances.

The court found that the juror's prior experience did not result in a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court reasoned that the juror had not disclosed their personal history at the time of selection and that there was no evidence that this history influenced the juror's decision. The court further held that the discharge of the juror did not contaminate the remaining jury members. It was determined that the inquiry conducted through the foreman was an appropriate means to assess the jury's impartiality, as it did not prejudice the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the application to set aside the conviction was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the application. The conviction of the defendant was upheld, and the decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the jury process while addressing concerns about potential bias or contamination.

Orders