R v Goodwin (No. 2)

The case of R v Goodwin (No. 2) involved the accused, Goodwin, and the Crown. The dispute revolved around several issues, including the discharge of a juror, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the participation of the accused in a police interview. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with resolving these legal matters.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether certain questions and answers from a police interview could be excluded, whether specific evidence from a witness could be admitted, and if the trial could proceed with fewer than twelve jurors following the discharge of one juror. The court had to consider the implications of the discharge of a juror on the integrity and fairness of the trial, the relevance and admissibility of the proffered evidence, and the accused's rights in the context of the police interview.

The court ruled that the accused's application to exclude certain questions and answers from the police interview was refused. It found that the evidence was relevant and admissible, and that excluding it would not be in the interest of justice. Regarding the evidence from Shaelene Elliott, the court allowed the Crown to adduce evidence of representations made by her, as outlined in her statement. The court determined that this evidence was pertinent to the case and could be presented to the jury. Finally, the court addressed the issue of the discharged juror. After obtaining written consent from both the accused and the Crown, the court decided that the trial could proceed with nine jurors, rather than the usual twelve, ensuring that the trial would continue fairly and effectively.

The court made several orders to reflect its decisions. The accused's application to exclude certain questions and answers from the police interview was denied. The Crown was permitted to introduce evidence from Shaelene Elliott regarding the representations mentioned in her statement. Lastly, with the consent of both parties, the trial was allowed to continue with nine jurors following the discharge of the third juror.