R v Holmes (No 4)

The respondents, the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, sought orders in the High Court in relation to jury deliberations in criminal proceedings against Holmes. The respondents sought orders to ensure the jury in Holmes' case deliberated properly, given the respondents' concerns that Holmes' jury had improperly made inquiries of the jury foreman. The High Court exercised its special leave jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Court was required to consider whether the trial judge should have given a Black direction to the jury. The respondents submitted that the trial judge should have given a Black direction to the jury, as the jury had improperly made inquiries of the jury foreman. Holmes argued that the trial judge should not have given a Black direction, as there was no evidence that the jury had improperly made inquiries of the jury foreman. The Court considered the appropriate test for determining when a trial judge should give a Black direction, and whether there was evidence that Holmes' jury had improperly made inquiries of the jury foreman.

The Court held that the trial judge should have given a Black direction to the jury, as the evidence demonstrated that Holmes' jury had improperly made inquiries of the jury foreman. The Court found that the trial judge should have intervened, even though the respondents' application was not made in a timely manner. The Court held that a Black direction should have been given, as there was evidence that the jury had improperly made inquiries of the jury foreman. The Court further held that the trial judge should have given the direction, as the respondents had established that the jury had made inquiries of the jury foreman. The Court did not consider it necessary to direct a retrial of Holmes.

The Court ordered that the jury deliberations in Holmes' case be quashed, and that Holmes be retried. The Court further ordered that the High Court's special leave be granted, and that the matter be remitted to the High Court for further consideration. The Court did not make any orders in relation to the costs of the proceedings.