R v We (No.11)

In the case of R v We (No.11), the defendant was on trial for a criminal offence, the specifics of which are not detailed in the report. The dispute arose from an incident during the trial where one of the jurors fell asleep and appeared to be inattentive, raising questions about the juror's fitness to continue participating in the trial. The matter was brought before the court, which was tasked with determining whether the juror should be discharged and whether the trial could proceed with a reduced jury of eleven members.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conduct of the juror, specifically falling asleep and appearing inattentive, constituted misconduct that warranted the juror's discharge. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial could lawfully proceed with a jury of eleven instead of the usual twelve, given the circumstances. The court's decision hinged on interpreting relevant statutes and case law regarding jury misconduct and the quorum necessary for a jury to continue deliberating.

The court examined the evidence and submissions regarding the juror's conduct, finding that the juror's behaviour did not amount to misconduct warranting discharge. It was noted that the juror had not been wilfully inattentive but rather appeared to be fatigued. The court held that discharging the juror would not be proportionate to the observed behaviour and would unduly disrupt the trial process. The court also found that a jury of eleven was sufficient to continue the trial, provided the remaining jurors were impartial and capable of reaching a fair verdict. This decision was based on legislative provisions and established legal principles that permit a trial to proceed with fewer than twelve jurors in certain circumstances.

As a result, the court ordered that the juror remain on the panel and that the trial continue with the eleven-member jury. The defendant's trial proceeded with these instructions, ensuring that the proceedings adhered to legal standards while accommodating the circumstances presented by the juror's inattentiveness.