R v Metius

In the case of R v Metius, the appellant was charged with the murder of his infant son. Following the jury's retirement, juror number 12 became distressed and requested medical assistance. The juror informed the bailiff that she felt threatened by the other jurors and did not feel safe in their presence. The judge heard submissions from counsel and ordered the juror to be discharged. The following morning, the trial continued with the remaining eleven jurors, and the judge did not provide any reasons for either decision. The primary legal issues were whether the judge erred in discharging juror number 12 and whether the appellant was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the continuation of the trial with eleven jurors.

The court examined the principles surrounding the discharge of a juror and the continuation of a trial with a reduced number of jurors. It was established that a judge has the discretion to discharge a juror if they are unable to perform their duties due to distress or other valid reasons. However, the court also recognised that the continuation of a trial with eleven jurors, as opposed to a full jury of twelve, could potentially impact the fairness of the trial. The court considered whether the judge's failure to provide reasons for discharging the juror and continuing the trial with eleven jurors constituted an error that deprived the appellant of his right to a fair trial.

Ultimately, the court found that the judge did not err in discharging juror number 12 or in continuing the trial with eleven jurors. The court held that the judge's decision was within their discretion and did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.