R v Gordon (No 7)

The case before the court involved the defendant, Gordon, who was applying for the discharge of the jury. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary issue before the court was whether the jury had become infected by the apprehension of bias, following verbal comments made outside the courthouse to a juror. The court was required to determine if these comments warranted the discharge of the jury and, if not, whether a different remedy was appropriate.

The court examined the application of the test established in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, adapted for use with a jury. It was necessary to consider whether the comments were of such a nature that a fair-minded lay observer might conclude there was a real possibility that the jury might not bring an open mind to the issues before it. The court considered the content of the comments and the context in which they were made. It concluded that while the comments were inappropriate, they did not reach the threshold where the jury's impartiality was compromised to the extent that a discharge was necessary. Instead, the court found that a further direction to the jury to disregard the comments and to remain impartial would suffice to address any concerns about bias.

In its judgment, the court determined that the jury's discharge was not warranted. It held that a further direction to the jury was an adequate remedy, ensuring the trial's integrity and fairness. The court provided clear instructions to the jury to disregard any external influences and to remain impartial. This decision balanced the need to address potential bias while preserving the trial's procedural fairness. The court's ruling allowed the trial to proceed without the need for a jury discharge, maintaining the proceedings' integrity.