R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 10) - [2017] NSWSC 32

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 10) [2017] NSWSC 32
Hearing dates: 3 February 2017
Date of orders: 03 February 2017
Decision date: 03 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
1. Juror 192-88 is discharged.
2. I direct that the trial continue with a jury of 14.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – Discharge of member of the jury – Where jury given an estimate of 3 months for the trial – Where note received from a member of the jury – Where that member’s employer was said to be seeking “legal advice” about the juror’s continued participation in the trial – Where the note expressed the juror’s concerns about potential ramifications upon his employment if he were required to continue to serve – Juror discharged
Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina – Crown
Ronald Medich – Accused
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G O’Rourke SC and Ms J Harris – Crown
Mr W Terracini SC, Ms M Curry and Mr T Quilter – Accused

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions, New South Wales – Crown
Colin Daley Quinn – Accused

File Number(s): 2010/356916
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

In the course of an adjournment of these proceedings this morning I was approached by the officer who has the day-to-day responsibility of caring for the members of the jury. The officer informed me that one of the members of the jury had asserted that his employer was "seeking legal advice" regarding his continued attendance as a member of the jury in this trial. I immediately directed the officer to have the juror provide me with a formal note so I could raise the matter with counsel.
A note was subsequently received, which is now MFI 12, in the following terms:

“Dear sir, I have few (sic) messages from my boss, he said that he is getting some legal advice (sic) me beeng (sic) here. I am woried (sic) that he might give me (sic) hard time when I go back to work.”

The note bears the name of the juror. For that reason I have not provided it to counsel.
Both senior counsel for the Crown and senior counsel for the accused have submitted that the note raises a serious question of the juror's capacity to continue to participate in the trial. It has been submitted, in particular, that it is plainly evident from the note that whatever has been said by the employer has caused the member of the jury concern and, in particular, has caused him concern as to both ongoing security of his employment and what may occur on his eventual return. The problems which arise from that will be obvious. Principally amongst them is the clear danger that the concerns expressed by the member of the jury will distract him and, as a result, interfere with his capacity to concentrate upon, and follow, the evidence as it is given in the trial.
Section…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 10) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 32
Decision Date: 03 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Ronald Edward Medich, was on trial for criminal charges in the County Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute involved the discharge of a member of the jury during the trial. The court was required to determine whether the juror's discharge was justified under the circumstances presented. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in discharging the juror after receiving a note from the juror indicating concerns about potential employment repercussions if he continued to serve.

The court considered the established principles governing the discharge of jurors in criminal trials. It noted that jurors have a right to serve without undue pressure or influence and that the trial judge must balance this right against the necessity of ensuring a fair trial. The court examined the content of the note received by the trial judge and the context in which it was given. The note expressed the juror's concerns about the potential impact on his employment if he continued to participate in the trial. The court recognised the importance of protecting the juror's employment interests while also upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

In determining the appropriate course of action, the court concluded that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in discharging the juror. The note provided a reasonable basis to believe that the juror's employment might be adversely affected if he continued to serve. The court emphasised that the protection of a juror's employment rights is a legitimate concern that can justify the discharge of a juror, particularly when the trial is expected to be lengthy. The court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding it to be a reasonable exercise of discretion under the circumstances.

No further orders were made by the court beyond affirming the decision of the trial judge to discharge the juror. The trial proceeded with the remaining members of the jury.

Orders