Last Week
Bench
- Messages
- 3,724
Jack de Belin rape trial jury unable to reach verdict, judge urges 'renewed attention to evidence'
The jury in the rape trial of Jack de Belin and Callan Sinclair has told the court it has been unable to reach a verdict.
Key points:
Judge Andrew Haesler has urged the jurors in the Jack de Belin trial to reconsider the evidence and discuss their points of difference
The jury, which retired last week, delivered a note to the court today explaining it had been unable to reach a verdict
A legal convention permits the judge to send the jurors back for further deliberation
The NRL star and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to raping a 19-year-old woman in a Wollongong apartment in 2018.
The jury returned to the court after retiring on Thursday afternoon.
It did not sit on Friday and only reconvened at 9:30am today.
In a note to Judge Andrew Haesler, the jury said despite careful consideration "we have been unable to reach a unanimous verdict".
Judge Haesler has urged the jury to go back over all the case and "give renewed, but calm and rational attention to the evidence."
'Not at all uncommon'
Judge Haesler said "a note such as this is not at all uncommon — in fact, it happens in many jury trials".
He then directly addressed the jurors and explained that there was a convention of the court that allowed him to send them back to their deliberations to try and reach a verdict.
"The trial has been going for over three weeks and it is clear that you have been paying careful attention to not only the evidence, but the issues that arose via questioning, cross-examination and which were discussed carefully by counsel last week and summarised by me," Judge Haesler said.
"Long experience has shown that even where there are stark divides and differences between jurors in certain stages in their deliberations, they often can reach unanimous agreement if given more time to consider the evidence and issues in dispute.
"Each of you swore or affirmed that you would give a true verdict according to the evidence.
"That is an important responsibility, you must fulfil to the best of your responsibility."
Judge Haesler told the jurors it was their duty to "objectively, calmly and logically" weigh the evidence, discuss it and understand "what difference of opinion there may be".
"If, after such calm, rational discussion, and after considering both the evidence and law and opinions of others, you cannot honestly agree with the conclusions of other jurors you much give effect to you own view of the evidence," he said.
"In the light of what I have said, I would ask that you retire to consider the evidence, consider the law, consider the opinions of others and see whether you can reach a unanimous verdict on the counts that are before you …
"I ask you carefully take your time go through it one more time to see whether you can reach a unanimous verdict on each of the 10 counts — that is five for each accused that is presently before you."
The jury was then led out of the room.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11...e-trial-jury-unable-to-reach-verdict/12922238
The jury in the rape trial of Jack de Belin and Callan Sinclair has told the court it has been unable to reach a verdict.
Key points:
Judge Andrew Haesler has urged the jurors in the Jack de Belin trial to reconsider the evidence and discuss their points of difference
The jury, which retired last week, delivered a note to the court today explaining it had been unable to reach a verdict
A legal convention permits the judge to send the jurors back for further deliberation
The NRL star and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to raping a 19-year-old woman in a Wollongong apartment in 2018.
The jury returned to the court after retiring on Thursday afternoon.
It did not sit on Friday and only reconvened at 9:30am today.
In a note to Judge Andrew Haesler, the jury said despite careful consideration "we have been unable to reach a unanimous verdict".
Judge Haesler has urged the jury to go back over all the case and "give renewed, but calm and rational attention to the evidence."
'Not at all uncommon'
Judge Haesler said "a note such as this is not at all uncommon — in fact, it happens in many jury trials".
He then directly addressed the jurors and explained that there was a convention of the court that allowed him to send them back to their deliberations to try and reach a verdict.
"The trial has been going for over three weeks and it is clear that you have been paying careful attention to not only the evidence, but the issues that arose via questioning, cross-examination and which were discussed carefully by counsel last week and summarised by me," Judge Haesler said.
"Long experience has shown that even where there are stark divides and differences between jurors in certain stages in their deliberations, they often can reach unanimous agreement if given more time to consider the evidence and issues in dispute.
"Each of you swore or affirmed that you would give a true verdict according to the evidence.
"That is an important responsibility, you must fulfil to the best of your responsibility."
Judge Haesler told the jurors it was their duty to "objectively, calmly and logically" weigh the evidence, discuss it and understand "what difference of opinion there may be".
"If, after such calm, rational discussion, and after considering both the evidence and law and opinions of others, you cannot honestly agree with the conclusions of other jurors you much give effect to you own view of the evidence," he said.
"In the light of what I have said, I would ask that you retire to consider the evidence, consider the law, consider the opinions of others and see whether you can reach a unanimous verdict on the counts that are before you …
"I ask you carefully take your time go through it one more time to see whether you can reach a unanimous verdict on each of the 10 counts — that is five for each accused that is presently before you."
The jury was then led out of the room.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11...e-trial-jury-unable-to-reach-verdict/12922238
