Regina v Jackson - [2002] NSWCCA 303

CITATION: Regina v Jackson [2002] NSWCCA 303

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60879/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 23/07/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Lloyd William Jackson

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 21; Hidden J at 1; Adams J at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/0202

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Payne DCJ

COUNSEL : GD Wendler - App
RA Hulme - Crown

SOLICITORS: Van Houten
SE O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: jury trial - two week interruption of the trial in the course of the Crown case - whether jury should have been discharged - whether trial as a whole unfair.

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

60879/01

SHELLER JA
HIDDEN J
ADAMS J
Tuesday, 23 July 2002

REGINA V Lloyd William JACKSON

Judgment

1 HIDDEN J: The appellant, Lloyd William Jackson, was tried in the District Court before her Honour, Judge Payne and a jury on an indictment containing two counts of homosexual intercourse, one count of assaulting a male with intent to have homosexual intercourse and one count of committing an act of gross indecency with a male. He was found guilty of three of those four counts, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He appeals against conviction only.

2 The offences were alleged to have been committed upon the same complainant between 1985 and 1986, when the complainant was aged between sixteen and seventeen years and was an employee of the appellant. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence at the trial. The only ground of appeal arises from the unusual course which the trial took.

3 It is sufficient to say that the case was basically one of word against word. The appellant gave evidence denying any sexual contact whatsoever with the complainant. There was a delay of over thirteen years before the complainant made any complaint of the appellant’s alleged conduct.

4 The matter which is agitated in the appeal arises in this way. On 6 September 2001 the appellant was arraigned and a jury was empanelled. The jury was excused until 10 September and, as I understand it, some legal matters were addressed in the meantime. On 10 September the trial got underway in the presence of the jury. For reasons which need not concern us, the evidence of the complainant was given in somewhat piecemeal fashion over the four days between 10 and 13 September.

5 On 13 and 14 September other evidence in the Crown case was called. A weekend intervened and, by Monday, 17 September, an issue had arisen about the appellant’s fitness to be tried. On that day and on the following day the jury was sent away whilst there was discussion about how that matter should be dealt with.

6 On 19 September the jury was sent away until 27 September. On that day counsel then appearing for the appellant sought the discharge of the jury. There does not appear to have been a formal ruling on that application but, clearly, her Honour did not take…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Jackson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWCCA 303
Decision Date: 23 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Jackson, the defendant was on trial for criminal offences before a jury in the County Court of Victoria. The trial was interrupted for two weeks due to an unforeseen circumstance in the course of the Crown's case. The defendant sought to have the jury discharged on the basis that the interruption had resulted in an unfair trial. The court was required to determine whether the jury should have been discharged and whether the trial as a whole was unfair.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the two-week interruption of the trial constituted a significant procedural error that warranted the discharge of the jury, and whether the trial was rendered unfair as a result. The court considered the principles governing the fairness of a trial and the circumstances in which a jury may be discharged. It also examined the impact of the interruption on the jury's ability to remain impartial and the potential for prejudice arising from the delay.

The court found that the two-week interruption did not constitute a significant procedural error that warranted the discharge of the jury. It held that the trial as a whole was not unfair, as there was no evidence of prejudice to the defendant or any undue influence on the jury. The court considered the nature of the interruption, the steps taken to ensure the jury's impartiality, and the overall fairness of the trial process. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the trial was conducted fairly and that there was no basis to discharge the jury.

The court dismissed the defendant's application to discharge the jury and found that the trial was not unfair. The trial proceeded, and the jury delivered a verdict on the charges against the defendant. The final orders of the court were that the jury's discharge was not warranted and that the trial would continue as scheduled.

Orders