Hoang v R [2018] NSWCCA 166

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hoang v R [2018] NSWCCA 166 Hearing dates: 2 March 2018 Decision date: 03 August 2018 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Campbell J at [3]; N Adams J at [24] Decision: Appeal against conviction is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction appeal – A juror conducted an internet search about a matter relevant to the trial – The trial judge took 10 verdicts that had already been reached prior to examining and discharging the juror for misconduct – Two further guilty verdicts were reached following the juror's discharge by the remaining jury members – Whether the juror engaged in misconduct for the purposes of the mandatory discharge provision under s 53A(1)(c) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) by making an inquiry contrary to s 68C of the Jury Act or by engaging in conduct that gave rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice in the trial – Whether the trial judge's erroneous discharge of the juror was a breach of mandatory provisions of the Jury Act going to the constitution and authority of the jury such that the proviso under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) could not apply with respect to the final two verdicts reached following the juror's discharge Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW), Pt 3 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M, 61O, 66A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 5F, 6 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 75 Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 22, 53A, 53C, 55DA, 68C, 73, 73A Jury Amendment Act 2004 (NSW) Jury Amendment Act 2008 (NSW) Cases Cited: AK v State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8 Bahrami v R [2017] NSWCCA 8 Benbrika v The Queen (2010) 29 VR 593; [2010] VSCA 281 Carr v R [2015] NSWCCA 186 Cesan v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 358; [2008] HCA 52 Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 Folbigg v R [2007] NSWCCA 371 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Kalbasi v The State of Western Australia (2018) 352 ALR 1; [2018] HCA 7 Katsuno v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 40; [1999] HCA 50 Li v R (2010) 265 ALR 445; [2010] NSWCCA 40 Maher v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 221; [1987] HCA 31 Petroulias v R (2007) 73 NSWLR 134; [2007] NSWCCA 134 R v Brown & Tran (2004) 148 A Crim R 268; [2004] NSWCCA 324 R v JP (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1678 R v K (2003) 59 NSWLR 431; [2003] NSWCCA 406 R v Lamb [2016] NSWCCA 135 R v McCormack (1996) 85 A Crim R 445 R v Sio (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1414 R v Skaf (2004) 60 NSWLR 86; [2004] NSWCCA 37 R v Tantram [2001] EWCA Crim 1364 R v Wood (2008) 186 A Crim R 454; [2008] NSWSC 817 Smith v R (2010) 79 NSWLR 675; [2010] NSWCCA 325 Smith v Western Australia (2014) 250 CLR 437; [2014] HCA 3 Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30 Weiss v R (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52 Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 27 October 2004 at 12096) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Quy Huy Hoang (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: D Carroll/PD Swaine (Applicant) B Baker (Respondent)