Daily wrap
Editor’s picks
Unexpected poo emoji lands in a Federal Court judgment [SMH paywall]
War criminal Ben Roberts-Smith’s failed defamation appeal brought a legal first in a Federal Court judgment.
[1] I agree, for the reasons given by Bradley JA, that it was not open on the evidence before the learned trial judge, including the juror’s own statements, to have found that the discharged juror “is not impartial” for the purposes of s 56(1)(a) of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld). There were troubling aspects to that juror’s seventh note, including her apparent perception that it was within the power of the jury to “vote” that she “should go”. But the seventh note did not reveal a basis to conclude the juror herself was not, or appeared not to be, impartial…
….
[26] The seventh note read: “I want to voluntarily remove myself because the other jurors have voted I should go & in addition, I feel there are sufficient jurors who are not impartial to secure a carefully weighted decision. The reason those who voted against me feel uncomfortable is I challenge their prejudices in my opinion & they see that as me being biased in favour of the defendant. In my view, the jury should disband, but I am leaving, so that is up to them now. I am neurodivergent so its [sic] hard to communicate with them. The decision was majority, not unanimous.”
Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues about our newsletter!
We love feedback - [email protected]