The King v Kerinauia - [2024] NTSC 57

CITATION:The King v Kerinauia [2024] NTSC 57
PARTIES:THE KING

v
KERINAUIA, Keith

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22308695
DELIVERED:  4 July 2024
HEARING DATES:  6 June 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Hiley J

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Jury – Challenge for cause – On basis that potential juror may not be indifferent as between the Crown and the accused – Require sufficient foundation of fact before challenge can be determined – Involvement of members of jury panel in activities in support of the victim – Sufficient foundation of fact likely – Suggested directions to jury panel pre-empanelment – Procedure under s 356 Criminal Code 1983 (NT) for jurors to determine whether the person is or is not indifferent
Bail Act 1982 (NT)
Criminal Code 1983 (NT) s 354, s 355, s 356
Criminal Code 1899 (QLD) s 610, s 611, s 612
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) s 104
Juries Act 1967 (ACT) s 36A
Juries Act 2003 (TAS) s 36
Juries Act 1962 (NT) s 42, s 43, s 44
Juries Act 1967 (VIC) s 38
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 68
Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s 46
Jury Act 1967 (QLD) s 43
Bush v The Queen (1993) 69 A Crim 416; Murphy v The Queen [1989] 167 CLR 94; R v Manson [1974] Qd R 191; R v Sills [1995] QWN 53; R v Stuart and Finch [1974] Qd R 297, referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:M Aust
Accused:J Tippett KC and P Maley
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Maleys Barristers & Solicitors
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Hil2401
Number of pages:  10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The King v Kerinauia [2024] NTSC 57

No. 22308695
BETWEEN:

THE KING

Crown

AND:

KEITH KERINAUIA

Accused

CORAM: HILEY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 4 July 2024)
Introduction

This is an expanded version of a ruling which I made the day before the empanelment of the jury in this case. I am publishing this in case it will be of assistance in future cases of the kind contemplated in ss 354 to 356 of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT) (Criminal Code).
Counsel for the accused sought permission to challenge some potential jurors for cause. Such challenges are contemplated by s 354(1) of the Criminal Code.
This case had undergone extensive coverage in the press, as a result of which many potential jurors would already know about parts of it - primarily that the 20-year-old victim, Declan Laverty, died as a result of being stabbed by the accused. That in itself would rarely be sufficient basis for allowing a challenge for cause.[1]
Additional circumstances relied upon here were the fact that some potential jurors or members of their family may have:
(a)signed a petition in favour of or concerning the death of Declan Laverty;
(b)attended a demonstration or protest related to the death of…

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 The King v Kerinauia

Details

AGLC: The King v Kerinauia [2024] NTSC 57
Case: [2024] NTSC 57
Decision Date: 4 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Kerinauia, was charged with a serious criminal offence. The trial took place in a court in the Northern Territory, with the prosecution being conducted by the Crown. The dispute centred around the process of selecting jurors for the trial, specifically whether a potential juror could be challenged for cause due to concerns about their ability to be impartial. The defendant argued that one of the potential jurors may not be indifferent between the Crown and the accused, potentially impacting the fairness of the trial.

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the standard of proof necessary to challenge a potential juror for cause and the appropriate procedure to follow when such a challenge is made. The court had to determine whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the challenge and, if so, whether the potential juror should be excused from serving on the jury. Additionally, the court considered the appropriate pre-trial directions that should be given to the jury panel to ensure that any concerns about impartiality could be properly assessed.

The court ruled that a challenge for cause could only be upheld if there was a sufficient foundation of fact suggesting that the potential juror was not indifferent. The court noted that the involvement of members of the jury panel in activities in support of the victim could provide such a foundation. The court also suggested that directions should be given to the jury panel pre-empanelment to assist in determining whether a person was indifferent, as per section 356 of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT). Ultimately, the court found that the challenge for cause was not supported by sufficient evidence and the potential juror was allowed to serve on the jury.

The court's decision was based on the principle that challenges for cause should only be upheld when there is a clear and convincing basis for believing that a potential juror cannot be impartial. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process and ensuring that all jurors are capable of making an unbiased decision based on the evidence presented. The court's ruling clarified the legal standards and procedures to be followed when considering challenges for cause and provided guidance for future trials in the Northern Territory.

Orders