R v McNeil (No 2)

The respondents, Mr McNeil and his co-accused, were facing a trial for the murder of a police officer. They sought an application to discharge the jury on the basis that prejudicial media reporting of the first day of the trial had rendered it unsafe for the jury to deliver a fair and unbiased verdict. The media had published photographs of the accused which suggested a tendency towards violence and intoxication, and the respondents argued this was likely to prejudice the jury against them. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prejudicial media reporting was so significant as to warrant discharging the jury, and whether further directions could mitigate the risk of prejudice. The court considered the particular directions already given to the jury regarding impartiality and objectivity in light of prejudicial pre-trial publicity, and whether additional directions could adequately address any prejudice. The court also took into account the expectation that jurors would adhere to their oaths and comply with the directions issued to them.

The court held that the prejudicial media reporting did not necessitate discharging the jury. It found that the directions already given to the jury were sufficient to ensure they would remain impartial and objective. The court noted that jurors were expected to adhere to their oaths and follow the directions given to them. The court further held that additional directions could be given to the jury to reinforce the importance of adhering to their oaths and following the directions. The application to discharge the jury was therefore refused.

No further orders were made by the court. The trial continued with the jury being further directed to adhere to their oaths and follow the directions given to them.