Juror in murder trial did not need weekends off, says law firm

An employee who was called to jury duty during an emotionally stressful murder trial could have come to work rested on the weekend, a court heard.

A vintage clothing store in Sydney's inner west has been charged twice with allegedly threatening the woman during the eight-week trial after she failed to show up for work on Saturdays and Sundays.

The employee, whose identity cannot be legally established, was scheduled to work three out of four weekends, from February to April 2023, at the time of her summons to appear before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Although the trial judge had sent the woman two letters asking her to rest over the weekend, the store manager nevertheless emailed her in early March saying that she had violated company policy by not keeping her regular work hours.

In April, upon returning to work, the employee received a letter informing her of an upcoming disciplinary hearing at which she would face either a warning or termination.

The woman then decided to resign after previously informing the court that she felt unfairly punished.

The parties returned to Downing Centre Local Court on Wednesday, where the store's lawyer, Geoff Diggins, denied making any threats.

The company had merely reserved the right to take action, but that did not mean that it actually intended to take such action, Judge Scott Nash was told.

“There is not even a general sense of a threat, let alone a specific threat,” Mr Diggins said.

Even if there had been a threat, it had nothing to do with the employee's jury duties because she was not required to appear in court on the weekend, the lawyer added.

Although labor law provides that employees can be released from work for community service, such as serving as jurors or in the volunteer fire department, there is no legal obligation to grant them the same amount of leave afterwards, the court explained.

The juror would have left the courtroom at 4 p.m. on Friday and would have been scheduled to work at 10 a.m. on Saturday, which is considered sufficient rest time under the law, he said.

“I'm not saying it's a particularly generous claim, but that debate needs to be had elsewhere,” he said.

The woman was young and healthy, and the transition from serving on the jury in a murder trial to dealing with customers in a store would have meant “a complete change in her mental state,” Diggins said.

But prosecutor David Kell SC said the defence's narrow interpretation of the law would result in the jury law losing its protective function.

The alleged threats were at least implicit and would have been apparent to a reasonable person reading the store's email and letter, he said.

“A clear implicit threat is still a threat,” he said.

The only reason the woman refused to work on the weekend was the psychological exhaustion caused by her jury duty, said Dr. Kell.

The alleged threats are a direct consequence of this and could be prosecuted, he added.

Mr Nash will announce his decision on August 27.