R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 5) [2020] NSWSC 1941

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 5) [2020] NSWSC 1941 Hearing dates: 28 February 2020 Date of orders: 28 February 2020 Decision date: 28 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wilson J Decision: Trial proceeding with reduced number of jurors Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – trial - conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – question of whether trial should continue with a jury of less than 12 – discharge of juror – circumstances of juror's discharge not such as to affect the balance or impartiality of jurors – s 53C(1)(b) Jury Act – no substantial miscarriage of justice – impartiality of the balance of jurors – interests of justice that matter proceed Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Darren Mohr (Accused) Representation: Counsel: M England/C McGorey (Crown) G Brady SC (Accused)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Crown) McGirr Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/376756 Publication restriction: Judgment previously restricted pending finalisation of all co-accused trials and related appeals.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED) 1. HER HONOUR: A short time ago the Court discharged a single juror pursuant to s 53B(b) and/or (d) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The question now arises as to whether the trial can continue with a jury of less than 12. 2. Counsel are both in agreement that the trial should proceed and that there is no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice in so doing. That is also my view. The circumstances of the individual juror's discharge are not such as to lead to any question of the balance of the jurors having been affected or of any matter arising which could have affected the impartiality of the balance of the jurors. 3. It is now the 17th day of these proceedings. We are well into the accused's case and it is in the interests of justice, in that regard, that the matter proceed. Having regard to s 53C and its terms, I do not believe that to continue with the trial would give risk to the rise of a substantial miscarriage of justice. 4. Accordingly, it is the order of the Court that the trial will continue with a reduced number of jurors.