Introduction to the Australian Legal System and Legal Methods
LAW1019
Semester 2, 2019
Assessment Task – Research and Evaluation Skills
Case Note
This assessment task is designed to evaluate your ability to find, read and critically analyse a
court decision. You are required to prepare a Case Note.
1. Locate, research and analyse a court decision. Your case summary must include the
following information:
• The co
ect case citation;
• The judge(s) and the date of the judgment;
• The names of the parties and their role in the litigation (i.e. are they the appellant,
the respondent?);
• A
ief summary of the material facts;
• The key legal issues for determination;
• A summary of the analysis of the law and the principles of law applied in the
judgment;
• The final outcome and the orders made by the court.
2. Write a critical analysis of the decision. You should consider the following questions:
• From a public policy perspective, do you think the court a
ived at the right
outcome? Why/why not?
The different groups will have to research the following decisions:
Group 1/2 (Tim): Trkulja v Yahoo! Inc LLC & Anor [2012] VSC 88
Group 3/4 (Chelsea): Thorne v Kennedy [2017] HCA 49 (you only need to summarise the
judgment of the plurality)
Group 5/6 (Lisa): Sawyer-Thompson v The Queen [2018] VSCA 161
Group 7/8 (Chris): R v Ferguson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 227
Total Word Limit: 1500 words (not counting footnotes)
Due Date: 23:59 pm on 17 August 2019
Marks: This assessment task is worth 15% of the total marks for this course. Please see the
u
ic in the assessment guide for a
eakdown of the marks applicable to each component
of the assessment task.
Your paper should be written using the Australian Guide to Legal Citation style, including for
the referencing of all sources. You will lose marks if you do not follow the co
ect style.
Papers must be submitted electronically through Turnitin.
Please also refer to the Course Guide for this course which includes information about
available grades; extensions of time; special consideration for assessment tasks; and the
ules relating to plagiarism and academic misconduct.
Case note style example for crucial parts of your case note! Please note that there are more
points you need to address – carefully read the instructions handed out and the ru
ic!
The case students had to write about here was: Smith v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 161
Brief summary of the material facts
The appellant was tried and convicted of rape in the District Court of Queensland.1 During the trial
efore a judge and a jury, the jury was unable to reach a verdict after lengthy deliberations.2 The jury
then wrote a note to the trial judge informing him of its interim voting patterns.3 While the trial judge
informed counsel that there was no total agreement, he did not disclose the jury’s voting patterns.4 At
this stage the jury had been deliberating for more than eight hours, a time period that allowed the
judge to give a majority verdict direction according to s 59A(2) of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld).5 The jury was
duly advised and convicted the appellant shortly after by a 11:1 majority.6 An appeal of this conviction
to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, on procedural fairness grounds, was
dismissed.7 Smith was granted special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Legal issues for determination
The High Court had to determine whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness because jury
interim voting patterns were not revealed to counsel.8 This included a consideration of whether the
non-disclosure of votes and voting patterns to counsel were relevant to an issue before the court.9 The
High Court also had to consider whether the disclosure of the voting information to the court could
have influenced ‘the trial judge’s exercise of discretion to either either a majority verdict or to discharge
the jury’.10
A summary of the analysis of the law and the principles of law applied in the judgment (extract)
Gordon J (with the other judges of the HC agreeing) based her decision principally on the authorities
efe
ed to below.
Her Honour first examined the importance of the confidentiality of jury deliberations, which she
considered to be a principle of highest significance in the criminal justice system. 11 Therefore, jury votes
or voting patterns should not be revealed, to the court or otherwise, which is a sensible direction for
the judge to give to the juries.12 This high level of confidentiality of the jury voting process was necessary
to safeguard ‘frank and open discussions’13 in the jury room, ensuring that the view of each juror can
develop over time, a process Her Honour has described as ‘fluid, not static’.14 Its nature is determined
y a process of jury decision making that needs to consider not only whether guilt has been established
eyond reasonable doubt, but evaluate ‘particular questions that are steps along the way’.15 Ultimately
1 Smith v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 161, 166.
2 Ibid 167-8.
3 Ibid 168.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid 168-9.
6 Ibid 169.
7 Ibid 170-1.
8 Ibid 166.
9 Ibid 175.
10 Ibid 176.
11 Ibid 171.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid 171-2.
it is only the final verdict which is relevant, and not the process of reaching that verdict. Jury
confidentiality is crucial to protecting the finality of this verdict.16
Her Honour considered whether the non-disclosure of the voting patterns could give rise to the denial
of procedural fairness for the appellant. Drawing on the decision of Mason CJ and McHugh J in Dietrich
v The Queen,17 Her Honour stated that the concept of a fair trial had not strict boundaries, however,
one of the requirements of a fair trial was procedural fairness.18
She refers to the statements of the Victorian Court of Appeal, R v Wise,19 which found that procedural
fairness requires that counsel gets the opportunity to ‘see and comment upon any material relevant to
the issue before the court which is available to the judge and known not to be available to counsel’.20
This disclosure rule, Gordon J finds, also requires the court to provide the accused and the prosecution
with the opportunity to make ‘submissions which bear upon the future conduct of the trial’.21 She
further refines these requirements, with reference to the Victorian Court of Appeal in Ucar v Nylex
Industrial Products Ltd,22 which provided that:
a party should be given the opportunity to respond to matters prejudicial to its interests that are known
only to the court and which might be taken into account in the determination of issues that may affect
the party’s property, rights or legitimate expectations.23
This, her Honour finds, also implicitly means that where the information ‘is not available to an issue
efore the court, nor regarded i
elevant … its non-disclosure cannot be a denial of procedural fairness’.
24
Gordon J than considers the applicable provisions of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld), especially s 70(2), which
estricts the publication of jury information to the public, and s 70(6), which permits its disclosure to
the court ‘to the extent necessary for the proper performance of the jury’s function.’25 She finds that
the disclosure of the interim votes of the jury to the judge was not necessary for the proper
performance of the jury’s role to determine the guilt of the accused.26 Neither, she found, was
disclosure to the judge necessary to exercise his discretion whether to discharge the jury or to advise
them to consider a majority verdict.27
However, the right of the accused to a fair trial was not displaced by these provisions, because the
information disclosed to the judge was not ‘relevant to an issue before the court’, ‘because of the
protean and changeable character of the jury’s deliberation’. 28 Because changing jury votes are part of
the jury process, they cannot be relevant.29 Her Honour approves the decision of the Queensland Court
of Appeal in this case,30 which provided that it is questionable to what degree voting patterns would
provide a basis for a submission by counsel, especially since this could lead to ‘second-guessing of the
jury’s deliberations’.31 Instead the only information relevant to counsel was the question of whether a
majority vote may resolve the issue, and whether more time was needed – these were discussed in
open court.32
16 Ibid 172.
17 Dietrich v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 292, XXXXXXXXXX.
18 Smith v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 161, 172-3.
19 R v Wise XXXXXXXXXXVR 287.
20 Ibid 294.
21 Smith v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 161, 173.
22 Ucar v Nylex Industrial Products Pty Ltd XXXXXXXXXXVR 492.
23 Ibid 294.
24 Smith v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 161, 173.
25 Jury Act 1995 (Qld) s 70(6).
26 Smith v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 161, 174.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid 175.
29 Ibid.
30 R v Smith [2015] 2 Qd R 452, 482 (per Phillipides J).
31 Smith v The Queen XXXXXXXXXXCLR 161, 175.
32 Ibid.