R v Qaumi (No 29)

In the case of R v Qaumi (No 29), the respondent, Qaumi, sought a discharge of the jury after an incident during the trial. Counsel for the co-accused elicited evidence that Qaumi had previously "stood over" another individual and had "got out of gaol", which was potentially prejudicial. The trial judge declined the application, and Qaumi appealed the decision. The appeal raised questions about the grounds for discharging a jury due to prejudicial evidence and the circumstances under which such evidence might necessitate a discharge.

The court examined whether the evidence elicited by counsel for the co-accused was indeed prejudicial and whether it warranted a discharge of the jury. It was noted that counsel for Qaumi failed to object to the evidence when it was presented, which could have been seen as an admission of its relevance. The court also considered that the evidence did not clearly identify Qaumi as the individual who had "stood over" the other person, and the incident was a minor occurrence in the context of a lengthy trial. The potential for prejudice was considered in light of the trial judge's direction to the jury to disregard the evidence, which was deemed sufficient to cure any prejudice.

The court concluded that the trial judge was correct in denying the application for discharge. The evidence in question, while potentially prejudicial, did not clearly identify Qaumi and was a minor incident in the broader context of the trial. The court found that the potential prejudice was cured by the trial judge's direction to the jury. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the jury was not discharged.