• Headnote
  • Posts
  • Jury discharged for unauthorised research

Jury discharged for unauthorised research

Jury discharged for use of legal dictionary in R v Tembeleski (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 504, landmark case of Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Ltd begins, special leave sought in case of Cleo Smith abductor (Kelly v The State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 116)

October 28, 2024

Was this email forwarded to you?

Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au

Daily wrap  

  • R v Tembeleski (No 2) - NSW Caselaw

    [2] On Friday, 18 October 2024 in the late afternoon, two Court Officers, when cleaning up the jury room, located the book which is Exhibit VD9B. This trial did not sit Friday. There had been no access to the jury room between the departure of the jury on Thursday afternoon, being Thursday, 10 October 2024, and when the book was discovered on 11 October 2024. The book, Exhibit VD9B, will be referred to hereafter as “the book”. It was brought into the jury room by Juror M.

    [3] The book is entitled Oxford Australian Law Dictionary. It is a 2010 publication by Oxford University Press. The definitions within it are not simply of words, but the book provides statements of legal principle in relation to words…

    [20] And I emphasise it was not a one-off that someone came to the jury room with a book, maybe had a laugh about it, threw it in a bag and it was not seen again. That would be bad enough. The book was brought in day after day for seven days and placed on the table in sight of the whole jury and there were, in fact, references made to it so far as the jury wanted to do to this point in the trial. There is a significant risk that the jury would continue in that conduct of ignoring the directions of law that they had been given and refer to it in the future.

    [21] There is also, in my view, compounding that, the problem of security of justice in this trial in that all jurors disobeyed the directions by failing to make a report to the Court and therefore I have significant concern as to the jury’s attention to and compliance with the directions of law I might ultimately have to give them to do with such things as joint criminal enterprise, if that arises, alternative verdicts, directions as to evidence. In other words, all directions of law. They are a jury who has determined, despite the direction of the opportunity of assistance, which by compulsion is to be complied with, have taken it upon themselves to find a supplementing source. Each juror has failed to comply with directions in that way.

     

  • Profile: Former NSW Chief Magistrate Judge Peter Johnstone - Law Society Journal
     

  • Stephen interviews Ghassan Kassisieh (law, politics & a few things in between) - The Wigs - Apple Podcasts

    In this episode Stephen sits down for a wide ranging chat with Barrister Ghassan Kassisieh. The discussion is lengthy and covers lgbt rights, international politics, refugees, the politicisation of gay rights in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and comparative law, among other things. Ghassan is a Barrister at 12 Wentworth Selbourne chambers in Sydney after being called to the Bar in September 2024. He has a public and commercial law practice. Ghassan was previously Legal Director at Equality Australia where his legal policy advocacy contributed to over 16 LGBTIQ+ legislative reforms, including Australia’s first scheme regulating medical procedures performed on intersex people without capacity to consent.
     

  • Nick Scali Ltd v Lion Global Forwarding Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1247

    [1] The applicant, Nick Scali Ltd, is an ASX listed company conducting a retail furniture business.

    [2] The first respondent, Lion Global Forwarding Pty Ltd, is a freight forwarder which has purported to exercise a contractual possessory lien over about 240 shipping containers of furniture imported by Nick Scali from China and Vietnam to Australia. Nick Scali says there are 243 containers whereas Lion says there are 232, but the difference does not matter for present purposes. The contents of the containers are worth about $18.6m. Most of it is pre-ordered household furniture for customers who are getting increasingly agitated by the delay in the delivery of their orders.

    [3] By interlocutory application, Nick Scali urgently seeks orders that it pay what Lion claims from it into court against which Lion be compelled to release the containers to it. That relief was initially sought on the basis that the amounts claimed by Lion are in dispute, but in oral argument Mr Street, who appears for Nick Scali, seeks also to rely on Nick Scali having a claim for damages against Lion which, he submits, will or may exceed the amount claimed by Lion. The originating application seeks a declaration that Nick Scali is not liable to Lion, ie a negative declaration, and unspecified damages or compensation in the alternative.
     

  • How Do We Train Junior Lawyers In The Age of AI? – Artificial Lawyer 
     

International

Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues about our newsletter!

We love feedback - [email protected]