Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gatt (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 426 Hearing dates: 6 April 2018 Date of orders: 06 April 2018 Decision date: 30 April 2018 Before: Schmidt J Decision: Trial to continue with 11 jurors Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – jury – 11 jurors – trial to continue Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 22, 53C Cases Cited: R v Gatt (No 1) [2018] NSWSC 425 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 6 April 2018, having discharged one of the jurors under s 53B of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), the question of whether the trial should continue with 11 jurors arose to be determined. 2. Neither party sought the discharge of the entire jury, or opposed the trial continuing with 11 jurors, as s 22 of the Jury Act permits. Under s 53C there was a discretion to continue the trial with 11 jurors after one was discharged, unless I formed the opinion that to continue the trial "would give rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice". 3. Neither party suggested that such a risk had arisen in the circumstances in which the juror came to be discharged. They are dealt with in R v Gatt (No 1) [2018] NSWSC 425, which should be read together with these reasons. 4. I was satisfied that those circumstances did not affect the other members of the jury. Nor did they have the result that they could not perform their task satisfactorily. 5. For those reasons, I was not of the opinion that a risk existed that there would be a substantial miscarriage of justice, if the trial proceeded with only 11 jurors. Accordingly, the other members of the jury were not discharged and the trial then continued with 11 jurors, as I then formally ordered. ********** 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