Shrivastava v WA [No 2]

• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Jury deliberations
  3. › Secrecy of jury deliberations
  4. › Common law rule prohibiting evidence of statements made between jurors during deliberations
  5. › Whether email from juror describing another juror's statements during deliberations admissible
  6. › Whether rule extends to hearsay evidence of deliberations
  7. › Whether rule confined to admissibility or also limits facts that may be proved
• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Jury deliberations
  3. › Extrinsic material
  4. › Distinction between evidence of jury deliberations and evidence of matters extrinsic to deliberations
  5. › Whether statements made between jurors about extraneous information received from third party are within the exclusionary rule or constitute extrinsic material
• 1. Evidence
  2. › Documentary evidence
  3. › Admissibility
  4. › Whether document recording jury deliberations admissible under s 79C of Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
  5. › Precondition that direct oral evidence of fact would be admissible
  6. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79C
• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Appeal
  3. › Fresh evidence
  4. › Whether email from juror can found investigation into potential jury irregularity
  5. › Whether common law exclusionary rule prevents use of inadmissible material as basis for court-facilitated investigation

Quick Take