the phantom menace
Coach
- Messages
- 11,860
Some key factors re the quashing of the sencond trial convictions, from the SMH article:
Lawyers for Hayne successfully argued that directions given to the jury in the second trial were “flawed in almost every possible way” when detailing the mental element of the offence and, as a result, Hayne should be retried.
The appeal also succeeded on a second ground, that it was an error to overturn a ruling from the first trial regarding the complainant’s messages with another person being admitted into evidence.
Two other appeal grounds were dismissed: that the jury verdict was unreasonable, and that it was an error to allow the jury to view the complainant’s “outburst” from the first trial.
In the outburst, the woman began to cry over a line of questioning and said “no means f---ing no” before exiting the court and calling Hayne a “f---ing piece of shit”.
Hayne’s barrister Tim Game, SC, argued last year that the trial judge’s jury directions were peppered with words such as “might” and “may”, which clouded the legal principles the jurors were required to rely on.
So very technical grounds for achieving a retrial, and only successful on two fo the four grounds argued - significantly not in arguing that the jury's verdict (of guilty) was unreasonable.
Lawyers for Hayne successfully argued that directions given to the jury in the second trial were “flawed in almost every possible way” when detailing the mental element of the offence and, as a result, Hayne should be retried.
The appeal also succeeded on a second ground, that it was an error to overturn a ruling from the first trial regarding the complainant’s messages with another person being admitted into evidence.
Two other appeal grounds were dismissed: that the jury verdict was unreasonable, and that it was an error to allow the jury to view the complainant’s “outburst” from the first trial.
In the outburst, the woman began to cry over a line of questioning and said “no means f---ing no” before exiting the court and calling Hayne a “f---ing piece of shit”.
Hayne’s barrister Tim Game, SC, argued last year that the trial judge’s jury directions were peppered with words such as “might” and “may”, which clouded the legal principles the jurors were required to rely on.
So very technical grounds for achieving a retrial, and only successful on two fo the four grounds argued - significantly not in arguing that the jury's verdict (of guilty) was unreasonable.
