R v Hunter (No 10)

In this criminal case, the respondent, Hunter, was being tried for a criminal offence. During the course of the trial, a juror became unavailable due to an unexpected commitment. The trial judge discharged the juror, but Hunter argued that the entire jury should have been discharged instead. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia for determination. The central issue before the court was whether, in circumstances where a juror became unavailable due to an unexpected commitment, the trial judge was required to discharge the entire jury or could lawfully discharge only the unavailable juror.

The court held that the decision to discharge a juror or the entire jury should be left to the trial judge's discretion, depending on the circumstances of each case. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in discharging only the unavailable juror, as the commitment was unexpected and could not have been reasonably foreseen. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly and efficiently, and that the decision to discharge a juror or the entire jury should be guided by these principles. The court concluded that the trial judge's decision was not an error of law and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial judge. The jury's discharge of the single juror was lawful, and the trial could proceed with the remaining jurors. The court's decision provides guidance to trial judges in similar circumstances and reinforces the importance of ensuring that criminal trials are conducted fairly and efficiently.