R v Platen - [2005] QDC 432

[2005] QDC 432

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

Indictment No 754 of 2003
Dist-3386/03(1) QWIC

THE QUEEN

BRIAN ROBERT PLATEN

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/11/2005

REASONS FOR ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Jury Act 56(1)(a) - issue raised by defence counsel whether particular juror should be discharged - long day of sitting: 9.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. - full jury panel informed of long sitting before empanelment and no objections were raised - during the summing up at the end of the day the juror exhibited a lack of attention - juror was muttering, consulting his watch, dropping things and tapping a cigarette lighter - when informed the jury could go home the juror said "oh, what a feeling." - unacceptable risk juror would be deliberating in ignorance as he could not have heeded the summing up and its warnings.

HIS HONOUR: Consistently with the decision advised to counsel yesterday evening, I have discharged juror number 9 under section 56(1)(a) of the Jury Act on the basis that he ought not to be allowed to act as a juror in the trial. This should not be taken as any kind of a censure against him. He didn't know that such a step was contemplated. He had no opportunity to present a case that it should not happen. Yesterday afternoon, the juror appeared unsettled and distracted.

The Prosecutor felt it appropriate to enquire, in the course of his closing address, whether he was all right to continue, attracting an affirmative response. The situation became more concerning during the summing up, when the juror was muttering audibly but indecipherably what may have been private comments on the summing up or remarks to other jurors, including some in the row behind to whom he turned. He appeared to drop something which the bailiff - or it may have been the Prosecutor - later suggested was cigarettes. He was making a tapping motion with a cigarette lighter, it seems.

At 5.30 p.m., he exhibited huge satisfaction when told, in response to his own enquiry, that the jury could go home. He was heard to say, "Oh, what a feeling." He appeared to have been consulting his watch on and off for some while. The jury were let go at that time, which was the limit of the likely extended sitting hours that the full jury panel was warned of before any juror was empanelled. No-one took up the opportunity, which was offered, to raise any difficulty about sitting until 5.30.
The late sitting seemed appropriate to me in unusual circumstances, including unavailability of both counsel this morning and the necessity to begin the trial all over again with a new jury, after the jury on the previous day had to be discharged, if the trial was to be completed this week. There were other relevant considerations such as the complainant's having come to Brisbane from Mackay. The jurors did have a long day, which inevitably began early to accommodate the jury orientation program which started at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Platen

Details

AGLC: R v Platen [2005] QDC 432
Case: [2005] QDC 432
Decision Date: 25/11/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Brian Robert Platen, the defendant faced criminal charges in the Brisbane District Court. The trial involved a complex examination of the defendant's actions, which required careful consideration of various legal principles and evidence presented. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's conduct met the necessary legal standards for conviction.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether a juror, who exhibited signs of distraction and inattention during the summing up of the trial, should be discharged from the jury under section 56(1)(a) of the Jury Act. The juror's conduct, which included muttering, consulting his watch, and displaying other signs of distraction, raised concerns that he might not fully understand or appreciate the importance of the judge's instructions. This concern was heightened by the risk that any resulting conviction could be challenged on appeal due to the juror's apparent lack of attention.

The court considered the necessity of maintaining a fair and effective trial process, which includes ensuring that jurors are fully attentive and capable of understanding and applying the law. Given the juror's observable behaviour and the significant risk that his inattention could lead to an unfair outcome, the court decided to discharge the juror. This decision was made in the interests of justice, to prevent the potential for an appeal based on the juror's failure to heed the judge's directions.

The court's decision to discharge the juror was intended to uphold the integrity of the trial process. It recognised the importance of jurors being fully engaged and attentive throughout the trial, particularly during the summing up, where critical legal instructions are given. The court's ruling ensures that the trial proceeds with a jury that can properly consider all aspects of the case, thereby safeguarding the fairness and reliability of the verdict.

Orders