R v Kilincer (No. 6)

In the case of R v Kilincer (No. 6), the respondent, Kilincer, was on trial for the murder of his former partner. The issue before the court was whether a jury of eleven members should be discharged because of the absence of one member. The court had to consider whether the jury was still capable of delivering a fair and impartial verdict with only eleven members present. The High Court of Australia heard the matter on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the absence of one member from a jury of twelve rendered the jury incapable of continuing to deliberate and deliver a verdict. The court considered whether this constituted a 'fatal defect' that would require the jury to be discharged and a new jury empanelled. The court also needed to determine the appropriate legal test for assessing whether a jury could continue to function effectively after the absence of a member.

The court held that the absence of one member from a jury of twelve did not necessarily constitute a fatal defect. The jury was still capable of delivering a fair and impartial verdict, provided they could continue to deliberate effectively. The court applied the test that a jury could continue if it was satisfied that the remaining jurors could reach a verdict without undue influence from any single juror. The court concluded that the jury in this case was still capable of performing its function and that there was no need to discharge them. The court held that the jury could continue to deliberate and deliver a verdict, and that the trial should proceed with the remaining eleven jurors.

As a result of this decision, the trial continued with the jury of eleven. The court's decision clarified the legal position regarding the discharge of a jury due to the absence of one member. The court's ruling provided guidance for future cases involving similar issues and ensured that the trial process could continue without unnecessary delays.