Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Dawson and McHugh JJ. Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71

ORDER Both appeals allowed. Set aside the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales and in lieu thereof allow the appeals against conviction to that Court, quash the convictions and order that there be new trials.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Dec. 22 Mason C.J., Brennan, Dawson and McHugh JJ.

The appellant was convicted of two charges of arson, the first relating to a fire in September 1986, the second relating to a fire in November 1987. The fires occurred at two townhouses in the suburb of Airds near Sydney. The appellant was tried before Judge Gibson and a jury in the Liverpool District Court on the first charge. He was tried before Judge Collins and a jury in the Penrith District Court on the second charge. Appeals against both convictions were dismissed by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. Pursuant to the grant of special leave to appeal, the appellant now appeals to this Court.

Appeal against conviction relating to the 1986 fire

The ground of this appeal is that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial judge's exhortation to the jury to reach a verdict was erroneous in that it infringed the fundamental rule that the jury must be free to deliberate without any form of pressure being imposed upon them. After the jury had been deliberating for about three hours, the trial judge directed them in these terms:

Members of the jury, I understand you are having some problems and I propose to say a few words to you. You have been deliberating now for just under three hours and been unable to reach a verdict. You are a body of twelve individuals. Each of you has individually taken an oath to return a true verdict according to the evidence. As I told you in my summing-up, you are equal in your task, but nevertheless you have a duty, not only as individuals but also collectively. No one of you should be false to the oath you took but in order to return a collective verdict, a verdict of you all, there must necessarily be discussion and argument and a certain amount of give and take and adjustment within the scope of that oath.