R v Hawi (No 8)

[2011] NSWSC 1654

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hawi & ors (No 8) [2011] NSWSC 1654
Hearing dates:	23 May 2011
Decision date:	23 May 2011
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	R A Hulme J
Decision:	Three additional jurors be selected
Catchwords:	JURY - the jury in criminal proceedings - striking and empanelling - selection of additional jurors
Legislation Cited:	Jury Act 1977
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina Mahmoud Hawi Christian Adam Menzies Farres Abounader Ishmail Eken Usama Potrus Zoran Kisacanin David Padovan
Representation:	Counsel: Ms N Adams with Ms H Roberts (Crown) Mr P Dunn QC with Mr S Grant (Hawi) Mr J Stratton SC (Menzies) Mr J Trevallion (Abounader) Mr P Young SC (Eken) Mr R Driels (Potrus) Mr J Gordon (Kisacanin) Mr A Conwell (Padovan) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sid Hawach & Co (Hawi) Hunter Flood Pty Limited (Menzies) Archbold Legal (Abounader) Purcell Felton Lawyers (Eken) Barakat Lawyers (Potrus) Elie Rahme & Associates (Kisacanin) Nyman Gibson Stewart (Padovan)
File Number(s):	2009/50087

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: It is provided in s 19(1) of the Jury Act 1977 that in any criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court or the District Court that are to be tried by jury, the jury is to consist of 12 persons, or if the court makes an order under s 19(2) for the selection of additional jurors, 12 persons together with the number of additional jurors ordered by the court.

1. Subsection 2 provides that before a jury is selected in such proceedings the court may order that up to three additional jurors be selected if the court is satisfied that:

(a) the trial of the proceedings if of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection, and

(b) the selection of the additional jurors is an appropriate means of ensuring that there will be sufficient jurors remaining on the jury when the jury is required to consider its verdict, and

(c) appropriate facilities to accommodate the additional jurors are available.

1. No regulations have been made for the purposes of the subsection. Accordingly, the provisions of s 19(3), which is in the following terms, apply:

(3) Until regulations for the purposes of subsection (2) provide otherwise, a trial of proceedings the duration of which is likely to be more than three months is taken to be a trial of proceedings of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of that subsection.

1. The estimated length of this trial is in the order of four to five months, with a possibility that it may even extend to six months. Accordingly I am satisfied that this is a trial of proceedings of the kind provided for in s 19(3).

1. I am also satisfied that the selection of additional jurors is an appropriate means of ensuring that there will be sufficient jurors remaining by the time the jury is required to consider its verdicts. Whilst every endeavour is being made to ensure that potential jury members are well aware of the estimated length of the trial, and have been implored to inform me of anything in their personal circumstances that might impact upon their ability to serve for that period of time, there remains the possibility of unforeseen circumstances arising, such as ill-health, that will affect one or more jurors.

1. I have considered the facilities available within the courtroom and in the jury room and I am satisfied they are appropriate to accommodate the additional jurors.

1. Having regard to all of those matters, I order pursuant to section 19(2) that three additional jurors be selected for the jury in this trial.

**********

Decision last updated: 09 February 2012