Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gatt (No 1) [2018] NSWSC 425 Hearing dates: 6 April 2018 Date of orders: 06 April 2018 Decision date: 30 April 2018 Before: Schmidt J Decision: Juror discharged. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – jury – application to discharge juror – juror discharged – reasons Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 53B Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Joseph Gatt (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Robertson (Crown) Mr P Boulten SC (Accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) The Law Practice (Accused) File Number(s): 2014/186944 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment 1. On the fourth day of the hearing, 6 April 2018, I discharged one member of the jury, having received from that juror a note about a concern which had arisen that morning, when he recognised in the public gallery persons with whom he believed he had attended school. 2. These are the reasons for that decision. 3. It emerged that the juror was concerned that the people who he recognised were present because they knew the accused or others involved in the events which had resulted in these criminal proceedings being brought, rather than for some reason unconnected with the trial, in which event he indicated that he had no concern about continuing to sit as a juror. 4. The concern was explored by the juror being brought into court, initially to indicate who it was who had given rise to his concern. Enquiries made of the juror established that those persons were known to the accused; that the juror had come to write his first note, after having discussed with the other jurors, his recognition of persons in the court room; and that to have been the extent of his discussions with other members of the jury, about the matter which had arisen. 5. In those circumstances there was an application by the accused that the juror be discharged. That application was not opposed by the Crown. 6. Section 53B(d) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) empowers the Court to discharge a juror, if for any reason affecting the juror's ability to perform the functions of a juror, it appears to the Court that the juror should not continue to act as a juror. 7. In the unusual circumstances which had arisen, I accepted the common view of the parties and discharged the juror. 8. That was because I was satisfied that it was apparent that the juror's anonymity had been compromised, in circumstances where understandable concerns had arisen, which he had properly raised, as the jury had been directed to do. Evidence had been received and submissions made in opening, about the criminal activities in which the accused and others had been involved, in relation to murder, drug dealing and the possession of firearms. 9. In all of those circumstances I was satisfied that the juror's ability to perform his functions had been so affected, that he should not continue to act as a juror and he was discharged. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 01 May 2018