R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 37) - [2018] NSWSC 313

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 37) [2018] NSWSC 313
Hearing dates: 13 March 2018
Date of orders: 13 March 2018
Decision date: 13 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [26]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Juries – Discretionary discharge of juror following irregularity – Principles to be applied
Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Elomar v R [2014] NSWCCA 303; 316 ALR 208
R v Petroulias (No 26) [2007] NSWSC 819
R v Petroulias (No 27) [2007] NSWSC 838
Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30
Wu v R (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ronald Edward Medich (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Harris and Ms G Wright (Crown)
Mr W Terracini SC and Ms M Curry (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Colin Daley Quinn (Accused)

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

Judgment – ex tempore (revised)

In the course of the morning adjournment today I was informed by the Sheriff that when he attended the jury room for the purposes of delivering the lunches for the members of the jury, he was approached by one juror who had expressed some concern that she thought that somebody may have attempted to take a photograph of her when she was travelling by train into the city. At that stage, that was the entirety of the information that was provided to me. I asked the Sheriff to confirm that the incident had occurred this morning and I also asked him to inquire as to whether or not the juror in question had discussed the incident with the other members of the jury.
I was subsequently informed that the incident had happened this morning. I was also informed that having reported the matter in the terms outlined above, the juror then appeared to express some doubt about whether or not her photo was actually taken. She said that she had told the other members of the jury of the incident, and that they had effectively told her that she should not be concerned about it.
The juror also told the Sheriff that she was unconcerned for her safety. However she also indicated to him that she would be taking precautions in terms of travelling to and from court from this point onwards, including having her husband drive her to and from court, and also including the possibility of altering her hair style and/or wearing dark glasses for the purposes of disguising her identity.
The juror also informed the Sheriff that she had drawn the matter to his attention because of the fact that on the first day of the trial I had directed the jury, in specific terms, that any incident which might occur in the course of the trial which caused any concern whatsoever should be immediately drawn to my attention.
A note was subsequently obtained by the Sheriff 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 37) 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: [2018] NSWSC 313
Decision Date: 13 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Edward Medich was on trial for criminal charges in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether a juror should be discharged following an irregularity during the trial. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate principles to guide the discretionary discharge of a juror in such circumstances.

The court examined the principles governing the discretionary discharge of a juror. It considered whether the irregularity was significant enough to warrant the discharge and whether the irregularity could be remedied without discharging the juror. The court also assessed whether the discharge would cause substantial injustice to either party. These principles are crucial in ensuring that the trial remains fair and that the rights of the accused are protected.

The Supreme Court concluded that the irregularity did not warrant the discharge of the juror. The court held that the irregularity could be remedied through appropriate instructions to the jury, and that discharging the juror would not cause substantial injustice. The court applied the principles it had outlined, finding that the irregularity was not of a nature that would undermine the fairness of the trial. The trial proceeded with the existing jury.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the juror would remain part of the jury, and the trial continued as planned. The principles the court applied will be important for future cases involving the discretionary discharge of jurors.

Orders