R v Jones

THE COURT: Luke Steven Jones appeals pursuant to s 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against his conviction on 21 August 2023 of one count of sexual intercourse with [REDACTED] on or about 5 December 2020 without her consent knowing that she had not consented contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The verdict followed a trial before her Honour Judge Musgrave sitting with a jury commencing on 7 August 2023 and concluding on 21 August 2023.

For reasons that will shortly become apparent, it is unnecessary to refer to the four specified grounds upon which Mr Jones’ appeal was originally based.

In the events that occurred, the jury in the trial retired to consider its verdict on 15 August 2023. On 17 August 2023, the jury indicated that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Her Honour directed them in unexceptional terms to continue with their deliberations. On 18 August 2023, a single juror was discharged for medical reasons. The jury was thereafter again unable to reach a verdict as indicated in a jury note marked #7. The jury was then given a majority verdict direction when they returned to court at 3.12pm on 21 August 2023. The jury retired to consider its verdict further at 3.16pm. A majority verdict of guilty was delivered at 3.26pm.

Section 55F of the Jury Act 1977 is in the following relevant terms:

It is not controversial that the requirements of s 55F(2)(a) were satisfied in the circumstances of this case. Her Honour did not say so in terms but it was apparent from the course of the trial that she was satisfied that the conditions described in this paragraph for receiving a majority verdict had been met.

However, it is clear by way of contrast that the terms of s 55F(2)(b) were not followed. None of the jurors was examined on oath with respect to whether it was unlikely that they would reach a unanimous verdict after further deliberation. It follows that the failure to conform to the requirements of s 55F(2)(b) of the Act means that Mr Jones did not receive a trial according to law. That failure was not raised as one of the original grounds of appeal and was not referred to in written submissions of the parties to the appeal in this Court.

When these matters were drawn to the attention of the parties, it was accepted that Mr Jones had not been tried according to law. Accordingly, the Court proposed, and the parties accepted, that it was in the circumstances appropriate to make the following orders: