R v Wood - [2008] NSWSC 817

CITATION: R v Wood [2008] NSWSC 817

HEARING DATE(S): 28 July to 6 August 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 August 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

DECISION: Jury discharged.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Jury misconduct - directions given to a jury - examination of jurors on oath - contravention of s68C of the Jury Act - discretion to discharge a jury

LEGISLATION CITED: Jury Act 1977, s68B, s68C, s55DA
Evidence Act 1995, s128

CASES CITED: Winsor v R (1866) LR 1 QB 390
R v Boland [1974] VR 849
R v George, Harris and Hilton (1987) 9 NSWLR 527
Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427
Webb and Hay v R (1994) 181 CLR 41
Bartle and Ors [2003] NSWCCA 329
Qing An v R [2007] NSWCCA 53

PARTIES: Regina
Gordon Eric Wood

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/1675

COUNSEL: M Tedeschi QC and K McKay (Crown)
W Terracini SC and S Hughes (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Michael Bowe (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUSTICE GRAHAM BARR

6 AUGUST 2008

2007/1675 REGINA v GORDON ERIC WOOD
JUDGMENT ON A REPORT OF JURY MISCONDUCT

1 HIS HONOUR: This judgment concerns competing applications made by the parties as a result of a report made to the Court and evidence adduced under the provisions of the Jury Act. The accused, Gordon Eric Wood, is charged with having murdered the deceased, Caroline Byrne, by throwing her from the top of the cliff at The Gap, Watsons Bay, one night in 1995. The Crown Prosecutor began his opening late on the first day of the trial and concluded it on the second day. By the conclusion of the opening the jury had a reasonably detailed knowledge of evidence the Crown expected to call and what assertions it would make relying on that evidence. On Wednesday 30 July, the third day of the trial, the jury were taken for an inspection of certain features at Watsons Bay. They were shown the place from which the Crown would be submitting that the accused had thrown Ms Byrne to her death and the place where the Crown would be saying that she landed at the foot of the cliff, meeting her death. Several other features were pointed out as well. It was obvious to the jury that the acts of the accused relied on would be said to have taken place on a dark night when visibility was limited. The Crown mentioned in opening that there was a sea mist on the same night which further interfered with visibility.

2 The evidence began on the fourth day of the trial, Thursday 31 July. At the conclusion of the evidence in chief of the first witness the Court adjourned. Later the same afternoon there was received in my chambers a report, the effect of which was that a person claiming to be a member of the jury had had a telephone conversation with a journalist…

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.

Continue reading R v Wood

Details

AGLC: R v Wood [2008] NSWSC 817
Case: [2008] NSWSC 817
Decision Date: 6 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wood, the defendant was convicted of an offence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The dispute centred around whether the jury had been improperly influenced during the trial, leading to an unfair trial. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which has jurisdiction to review decisions made in the lower courts.

The court was required to decide whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and whether the examination of jurors on oath was conducted in accordance with the provisions of s68C of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions were insufficient and that the examination of jurors on oath was inadequate, leading to a contravention of the statutory provisions. The court had to determine if these alleged errors were significant enough to warrant a discharge of the jury or a retrial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the arguments made by both parties and reviewed the relevant legislation and case law. The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and did not lead to any miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the examination of jurors on oath was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Orders