R v Peter; R v Anau; R v Ingui; R v Banu

The four appellants were convicted of multiple counts of rape involving a 16-year-old complainant. The appellants appealed against their convictions on the basis of alleged errors made by the trial judge during the jury selection process and the court's refusal to discharge the entire jury. The court considered whether the trial judge's comments during jury selection impermissibly restricted the appellants' right to peremptory challenge and whether the failure to discharge the entire jury resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appellants argued that the trial judge's comments during the jury selection process constituted an error that impermissibly restricted or interfered with their right of peremptory challenge, negatively impacted on the community's perception of the integrity of the system, and may have given rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion that the jury was being composed in a manner that meant it would not discharge its task impartially. The court considered whether the trial judge's comments had any effect on the exercise of the right of challenge, or if they had the capacity to deny or undermine the peremptory right of challenge. The respondent submitted that the jury was constituted in compliance with the Act and that the error had no material consequence on the fairness of the trial or legitimacy of the verdicts.

The court found that the trial judge's comments during the jury selection process had the capacity to deny or undermine the peremptory right of challenge, which constituted a fatal defect in the jury selection process. The court also found that the failure to discharge the entire jury after Juror X was discharged resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The impartiality of the jury was fundamental to a fair trial, and the court found that Juror X's encounters with the appellants had the potential to colour the jury's discussions of the evidence and undermine the perception in the eyes of a fair-minded and well-informed member of the public of the jury's impartiality as a whole.

Orders:
The appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a re-trial was ordered on all counts.