Regina v MTN; Regina v CVH

In Regina v MTN and Regina v CVH, the High Court of Australia was called upon to address the issue of whether a jury was discharged correctly when jurors reported events that occurred during the trial. The case involved two defendants, MTN and CVH, who were being prosecuted for separate criminal charges. The jury was discharged when it was discovered that some jurors had reported events outside the trial to the police, which could have potentially influenced the outcome of the case. The defendants argued that the jury's discharge was improper and that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the irregularities reported by the jurors warranted the discharge of the jury. Specifically, the court had to determine the appropriate test to apply when assessing whether a jury should be discharged due to such irregularities. The court was also required to consider the procedure to be followed when determining the facts surrounding the irregularities, including whether a voir dire examination of the jurors by the court was necessary.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the test to be applied in determining whether a jury should be discharged due to irregularities is whether the irregularity has a substantial likelihood of affecting the fairness of the trial. The court emphasised that this test is not limited to whether the irregularity has actually affected the fairness of the trial, but rather whether it has the potential to do so. The court further held that a voir dire examination of the jurors by the court may be necessary to determine the facts surrounding the irregularities, but this must be balanced against the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. In this case, the court found that the irregularities did not have a substantial likelihood of affecting the fairness of the trial, and therefore the jury's discharge was improper.

The High Court quashed the convictions of MTN and CVH and ordered a retrial. The court also provided guidance on the appropriate procedure to be followed when determining the facts surrounding irregularities reported by jurors, including the circumstances in which a voir dire examination of the jurors may be necessary. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the fairness of the trial is not compromised, while also protecting the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.