R v Tangi (No 11)

In this case, the respondent, Tangi, applied to have his conviction quashed on the basis that the jury had been allowed to break in their deliberations between Christmas and New Year. The break in deliberations occurred at the jury's request, and neither party objected to it at the time. The application was brought before the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider whether the break had any impact on the fairness of the trial or the appearance of fairness. The court had to decide whether the break constituted a breach of the legal principles governing jury deliberations and, if so, whether that breach warranted quashing the conviction.

The court considered the principle that a trial must be conducted fairly and without any appearance of unfairness. It noted that while there is no absolute rule against breaks in jury deliberations, any such break must be justified and should not result in unfairness or the appearance of unfairness. The court examined the circumstances of the break in this case, including the fact that neither party had objected to it and that there was no evidence of unfairness or an appearance of unfairness. The court found that the jury's request for a break, which was granted, did not result in any unfairness or the appearance of unfairness. The court also noted that the break occurred between Christmas and New Year, a time when many people take a break from work, and that this did not necessarily mean that the jury's deliberations were influenced by external factors.

Given the lack of objection to the break, the absence of any evidence of unfairness or the appearance of unfairness, and the timing of the break, the court rejected the application to quash the conviction. The court held that the break in deliberations did not constitute a breach of the legal principles governing jury deliberations and did not warrant quashing the conviction. The court found that the trial had been conducted fairly and without any appearance of unfairness.

The High Court of Australia rejected the application to quash the conviction. The court held that the break in jury deliberations did not constitute a breach of the legal principles governing jury deliberations and did not warrant quashing the conviction. The court found that the trial had been conducted fairly and without any appearance of unfairness. The court did not make any further orders.