R v Scott (No 3)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Scott (No 3)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 460
Hearing Date(s):	26 March 2015
Date of Orders:	26 March 2015
Decision Date:	26 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Wilson J
Decision:	Application to discharge jury refused
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – application to discharge jury
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina Michael Scott
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Bowers (Crown) Mr W Flynn (Accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Archbold Legal (Accused)
File Number(s):	2013/104881
Publication Restriction:	None

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: In terms of the application to discharge the jury, just I suppose for the record, the considerations that I have, the advanced stage that the trial has reached, it is day 11, all of the most significant evidence has been given. There were quite considerable delays in getting some of the evidence before the Court and at least in part, I apprehend that that is because some of the witnesses were less than willing to come to court and give their evidence in answer to their subpoena. That is one of the features that I take into consideration when having regard to the determination of the application to discharge the jury.
The interests of the accused are of course a significant consideration, but it seems to me, particularly since he has the advantage of very experienced counsel coming into the matter to assist him that there is every likelihood can be ready to proceed within a reasonably short and an acceptably short period and that it seems to me is the preferable approach.
It is always in the interests of everyone to bring these matters to finalisation as quickly as can reasonably and justly be done, so, on that basis I refuse the application for a discharge of jury.
**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott (No 3) involved the accused, Scott, who was on trial for various charges including murder. The dispute centred on an application to discharge the jury from their duties due to potential juror misconduct. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether the alleged misconduct of one or more jurors was significant enough to warrant discharging the entire jury. The specific legal issue was whether the alleged misconduct had the potential to prejudice the fairness of the trial to such an extent that it would be just and equitable to discharge the jury. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the alleged misconduct was so serious that it could not be remedied by any other means, such as by discharging individual jurors or giving a direction to the remaining jurors.

The court considered the nature and severity of the alleged misconduct, as well as the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The court found that the alleged misconduct did not reach the threshold of seriousness required to discharge the entire jury. It was determined that the misconduct could be addressed by discharging individual jurors if necessary and by giving appropriate directions to the remaining jurors. The application to discharge the jury was ultimately dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established