Where the applicable legislation provides for majority verdicts (as under s 114 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)), the discharge during deliberations of a juror who can be inferred to be the sole dissentient in favour of acquittal does not necessarily constitute a miscarriage of justice requiring discharge of the entire jury, because the sole dissentient could not have prevented a guilty verdict. The NSW and Queensland authorities (BG, GL, Roberts, Blackmore, Phan) on discharge of dissenting jurors were decided on materially different legislation and do not govern the exercise of the discretion under s 116 of the WA Criminal Procedure Act.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.