R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 880

Reported Decision : 50 NSWLR 96 116 A Crim R 63

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 880 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70025/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 28.8.00, 29.8.00; 30.8.00 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 August 2000

PARTIES : Regina Richard John Sinclair Laws JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJatCL at 1

LOWER COURT Supreme Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 00/11/0086 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Wood CJ at CL JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : M. Tedeschi QC W. Terracini SC with W. Muddle DPP SOLICITORS : Hunt & Hunt

CATCHWORDS : CATCHWORDS - CRIMINAL LAW - meaning of the word "solicit" - s68A Jury Act 1977- question of law or fact - natural and ordinary meaning - special or confined meaning - jury process - protection of sanctity of the jury process ACTS CITED LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 26 Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s68A Jury Amendment Act 1997 (NSW) DECISION :

WOOD CJ at CL Tuesday 29 August 2000

1 2 Regina v Richard John LAWS

JUDGMENT (Re the word 'solicit'. See p60 of transcript)

The issue was whether 'solicit' in the context of the Jury Act has a special or confined meaning which requires a direction of law or a common meaning which should be left to the jury.

HELD:

1. The expression 'solicit' according to the standard definitions includes a wide range of synonyms. In the light of that circumstance and of the further circumstance that the defence contended that it should be understood in a limited sense involving a degree of pressure or persuasion, it was proper to determine, as a matter of law, whether it had a special or particular meaning in the context of the Jury Act. R v H (1993) NZLR 129; Brutus v Cozens (1973) AC 854 distinguished..