From what procedure according out of doing a view, get a hold of [4-335]ff
The newest Crown must name most of the its proof regarding Crown instance and should not separated their situation because of the contacting research when you look at the reply where it could features anticipated evidence getting titled by the defence: Shaw v Roentgen (1952) 85 CLR 365. The newest Crown is allowed to reopen their case in check so you’re able to supplement a deficiency within its circumstances which had been missed or simply tech: Wasow v Roentgen (unrep, 27/6/85, NSWCCA). This may exists when given it generally does not effect inside unfairness: Pham v Roentgen NSWCCA 194 (following the Top got come to address); Morris v Roentgen NSWCCA 152 at the .
Where there is certainly one or more implicated cross-test occurs in your order in which the accused are called about indictment except if the recommendations come to some other arrangement.
Viewpoints
It is common in order to appoint an excellent “shower” getting a person who tend to indicate various areas of the scene to the jury in accordance with the facts. This is often the authorities manager responsible for the analysis. The fresh accused need not be there within view but he or she has the right to attend: Jamal v Roentgen NSWCCA 198 during the . They usually happen your implicated decides never to on account of the brand new prejudicial feeling in case your accused is in custody.
It is strongly recommended that the cops be required to need good movies recording of one’s take a look at as a result it can later on feel tendered into the facts. Brand new tape are going to be produced so as not to ever divulge users of jury, but so you’re able to record what exactly is told you of the shower and you may, if possible questions requested by the jury and the solutions supplied by the newest bath.
Transcript
Brand new jury is generally supplied with the transcript otherwise element of it, together with details 
and, when the offered, the fresh summing-up otherwise part of it: s 55C Jury Act: Roentgen v Ronald Edward Medich (No twenty-four) NSWSC 293. The fresh provision away from transcript is a discretion worked out by the demonstration legal, however, there might be cases where the kind of your own charge, the quantity out-of facts and fragmented nature of your own hearing wanted that the jury be provided with brand new transcript in which they consult they: Roentgen v Bartle (2003) 181 FLR 1 on -, .
It’s advocated where a regular transcript solution will be provided, you to definitely a clean duplicate of the transcript on which decided manipulations is filed shall be stored in an excellent folder because of the judge’s user in case the jury afterwards request the latest transcript otherwise region of it. It is helpful to feel the transcript tabbed according to the identity of witnesses.
Strategies disagree on whether the jury is given brand new transcript daily because the a point of direction otherwise only when brand new jury desires the transcript. It may be provided at any time, actually throughout the deliberations. Where the jury is given a portion of the transcript, equity may need that they get more area of one’s transcript. A recommended recommendations concerning making use of transcripts try given from the [1-530].
It is suggested you to before transcript is given into jury, counsel are going to be requested so that brand new duplicate become given on them will not incorporate one issue as a result of apps otherwise conversation you to took place in the absence of brand new jury.
Romantic out-of Top instance
After the Crown case, in case your evidence pulled from the their higher is faulty in a way that brand new Crown try not to prove the latest charges towards needed education, brand new courtroom has an obligation in order to direct a keen acquittal, pick [2-050]ff. To own a recommended assistance into jury, find [2-060]. This new judge does not have any capability to lead a keen acquittal as the the guy otherwise she models the view you to a belief could well be harmful: Roentgen v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74; Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207.