A trial judge must not intervene during the jury empanelment process to signal in advance how the s 48 discretion to discharge the jury would be exercised, as such comments are capable of being perceived as intending to influence the exercise of the peremptory right of challenge. Where a juror is discharged for lack of impartiality under s 56(1)(a), the proper question under s 60 is whether a fair-minded and informed member of the public would have a reasonable apprehension that the discharged juror's lack of impartiality may have coloured the jury's discussions — not whether actual bias of the remaining jurors is proved. The expression 'high degree of need for discharge' is not a separate elevated standard but merely a succinct conclusion from the necessary preceding analysis.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.