R v Roberts

Case [2004] QCA 366

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roberts [2004] QCA 366

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBERTS, Gregory John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 178 of 2004
DC No 305 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

8 October 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, White and Cullinane JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Verdict to be set aside and a new trial ordered

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW — JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — JURIES — MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURTS AND JUDGES  — whether trial judge erred in failing to discharge jury following communications that jury were not unanimous — where dissenting juror caused distress to other jurors — whether choice to discharge dissenting juror resulted in unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict  

Jury Act 1995 (Qld) s 56(1)

Cheatle v R (1993) 177 CLR 541, considered
R v Black (1993) 179 CLR 44, considered
R v Edwards, Heferen & Georgiou [2002] 1 Qd R 203, cited
R v Hambery (1967) 65 Cr App R 233, cited
R vOrgles & Orgles (1994) 98 Cr App R 185, considered
R v Richardson (1979) 69 Cr App R 235, 1 WLR 1316, cited
Webb & Hay v R (1993-94) 181 CLR 41, cited

COUNSEL:

S Courtney for the appellant
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McPHERSON JA: I have read and agree with the reasons of Cullinane J. I was at first of the opinion that the written communication referred to in para [14] of those reasons stated or implied (“we are concerned for our safety”) that juror no 12 had become a threat to the safety of the other jurors. If that had been the case, it might have justified the trial judge in forming the view that, in terms of s 56(1)(a) of the Jury Act 1995, that particular juror no 12 “ought not, for other reasons, be allowed … to act as a juror at the trial”, and so should be discharged without discharging the whole jury.

  1. However, after reading what the other three jurors said in answer to his Honour’s questions, I am not persuaded that there was any real justification for concern on the part of other jurors that their safety might be imperilled. Rather, it was a case in which juror no 12 seems to have formed a very definite opinion of the verdict that should be given, and was expressing that opinion, if at all, vigorously and perhaps aggressively to those who tried to change his mind.

  1. In the circumstances, it seems to me that an occasion or reason had not arisen for the judge to act under s 56(1)(a) of the Jury Act without discharging the whole of the jury.

  1. I agree with the orders proposed by Cullinane…

Continue reading R v Roberts

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Roberts [2004] QCA 366
Case
[2004] QCA 366
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Roberts involved the appellant, who was charged with various criminal offences. The dispute centred on the trial judge's decision to not discharge the jury after it was revealed that a dissenting juror had caused distress to other jurors. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury, and if so, whether this error was such that it resulted in an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The court also had to consider the implications of discharging a dissenting juror and the potential impact on the jury's unanimity and verdict.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the principles of jury unanimity and the circumstances in which a jury may be discharged. The court concluded that the trial judge had indeed erred in not discharging the jury when it became apparent that a dissenting juror was causing distress to other jurors. The court found that the trial judge's decision not to discharge the jury, coupled with the distress caused by the dissenting juror, created a situation where the verdict was potentially unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court held that discharging the dissenting juror was a reasonable step to ensure the jury's unanimity, and the failure to do so had a significant impact on the fairness and reliability of the verdict.

Given the court's findings, the verdict was set aside, and a new trial was ordered to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial with a properly functioning jury. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the jury process and ensuring that verdicts are reached through fair and impartial deliberations. The court's decision underscores the critical role of jury unanimity in the criminal justice system and the need for courts to take appropriate action when issues arise that may compromise the fairness of the trial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict to be set aside and a new trial ordered

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.