The ACT Court of Appeal held that jury disagreement resulting in temporary separation of a juror does not constitute a miscarriage of justice under the HCF test where the trial judge gave appropriate further directions, no further irregularities arose, and unanimous verdicts were delivered without dissent in open court. On the mental element for sexual offences under s 54 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the Court held that the trial judge's omission of the words 'or may have' from the s 67(4) direction on belief in consent did not undermine the Liberato direction or the standard of proof, because the operative requirement remained that any belief be shown to be unreasonable, and the omission if anything favoured the accused. The Court also confirmed that where the prosecution does not invite the jury to reason from lies to consciousness of guilt, no Zoneff direction is required, and that the absence of trial counsel's objection to directions is a cogent indication that no injustice was occasioned.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.