High Court of Australia

Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017 [2019] HCA 9

20 Mar 2019

Case Number: M129/2018


Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ


Criminal practice – Trial – Jury directions – Prasad direction – Where accused charged with murder – Where Prasad direction given over objection at close of Crown case – Where another Prasad direction given at close of defence case – Whether Prasad direction contrary to law and should not be administered to jury determining criminal trial.

Criminal practice – Jury – Reserve jurors – Where one of 13 jurors balloted off to consider response to Prasad direction – Where jury wished to hear more – Where juror balloted off re-joined jury – Where second ballot conducted to reduce jury to 12 jurors again – Where jury delivered verdicts of not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter after second ballot – Whether ballot conducted at time at which "jury required to retire to consider its verdict".

Words and phrases – "fair trial", "fairness to the prosecution", "jury's suggested right to stop the case", "no case submission", "power of the trial judge", "practice of inviting the jury to stop the case", "Prasad direction", "retire to consider its verdict".

Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) – ss 66, 213, 234, 238, 241.

Juries Act 2000 (Vic) – s 48.

PDF MD5: 99ee06428b92ce6ab9ccc0be409d291b
RTF MD5: d04e5f4953b80e23e8033cc868274d84