R v We (No.6)

The case of R v We (No.6) involved a criminal trial in which one of the jurors had fallen asleep during proceedings due to an absence caused by illness. The issue before the court was whether the trial should continue with a jury of 11 persons, following the discharge of the absent juror, or if it should be halted due to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial could proceed with a reduced jury, given the circumstances of the juror's absence and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial.

The court considered the principles and precedents surrounding the discharge of jurors in criminal trials, particularly where the absence of a juror might lead to a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice. It was noted that the jury had been selected in accordance with the law and that the absence of the juror was not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the juror or the legal representatives. The court also took into account the fact that the evidence had been carefully presented, and the remaining jurors had been attentive and engaged throughout the trial. Given these considerations, the court concluded that the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice was minimal and that the trial should proceed with the remaining 11 jurors.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the trial continue with the jury of 11 persons, as the evidence had been properly presented, and the remaining jurors were capable of delivering a fair and impartial verdict. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that trials are conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness, while also recognising the practicalities of managing the proceedings and the rights of all parties involved. This decision provides guidance on the circumstances in which a trial may continue with a reduced jury, ensuring that the balance between procedural fairness and the efficient administration of justice is maintained.