R v Paterson (No 2)

The case of R v Paterson involved a defendant who faced a criminal trial. The dispute centred on the composition of the jury after one juror requested to be discharged following empanelment. The trial was estimated to last four weeks, raising the question of whether the entire jury should be discharged if one juror was unable to complete the trial. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the request by a juror to be discharged after empanelment warranted the discharge of the entire jury, and if so, under what circumstances such a decision would be appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider the potential impact on the fairness and efficiency of the trial if the jury were to be discharged.

The court considered the precedents and statutory provisions that govern the discharge of jurors in criminal trials. It concluded that while a single juror's request to be discharged was a serious matter, it did not automatically necessitate the discharge of the entire jury. The court held that discharging the entire jury was a remedy of last resort, to be considered only if the integrity of the trial could not be maintained with the remaining jurors. In this instance, the court determined that the trial could proceed with the remaining jurors and therefore declined to discharge the entire jury. The court's decision was based on the principle that the rights of the defendant to a fair trial and the efficient administration of justice should be balanced against the inconvenience to individual jurors. The court ordered that the trial would proceed with the remaining jurors.