R v Hunter (No 3)

The case involved the accused, Hunter, who was charged with criminal offences. The trial was at a very early stage, and one of the jurors expressed anxiety about the subject matter of the case. The court had to decide whether to discharge the juror, and if so, whether to discharge the entire jury or continue with the trial using the remaining jurors. The Crown argued that the entire jury should be discharged, while Hunter contended that the jury should be allowed to continue.

The court considered the implications of discharging a juror in such a case. It weighed the rights of the accused to a fair trial and the right of the Crown to be heard by a jury of twelve. The court also took into account the potential prejudice to the accused if the jury was discharged, as well as the risk of unfair trial if the juror was allowed to remain. Ultimately, the court decided that discharging the entire jury was not necessary and that the trial could proceed with the remaining jurors. The court found that the accused was entitled to a fair trial by a jury of twelve, and that the remaining jurors were capable of delivering a fair verdict.

The court's decision was based on the principle that the right to a fair trial by a jury of twelve is fundamental to the criminal justice system. However, the court also recognised that the anxiety of a juror could potentially impact the fairness of the trial. In this case, the court found that the remaining jurors were capable of delivering a fair verdict, and that discharging the entire jury would be an excessive response. The court also noted that the accused had not demonstrated any prejudice that would warrant a discharge of the entire jury.

The final orders of the court were that the juror expressing anxiety be discharged, and that the trial proceed with the remaining eleven jurors. The court emphasised that this decision was specific to the circumstances of this case, and that each case must be considered on its own merits. The court also noted that the accused had the right to appeal the decision if they wished to do so.