The Court discharged the jury in a murder trial after a witness volunteered evidence — not responsive to the question asked and not led by the Crown — that could be misused as an admission the accused did not act in self-defence. Although the proposed remedy of recalling the witness and providing judicial directions was considered, Dhanji J held that a real risk of prejudice remained because the evidence went directly to one of only two contested issues (self-defence), and the context in which the statement was made — following what the Crown contended were fundamental lies — created a danger the jury would treat the accused's pessimism about self-defence as substantively well-founded rather than merely reflecting resignation about his family name. The availability of a new jury panel the following day and the relatively early stage of the trial weighed in favour of discharge despite the distress to civilian witnesses required to give evidence again.
The full text is available to signed-in members.