AAP
A "forceful" juror in the case of a man who was convicted of stealing 16 truck loads of grain failed to reveal she regularly socialised with his separated wife, a court has heard.
In the Goondiwindi District Court in southwest Queensland in May last year, Victor William McCosker, 47, was found guilty of stealing 16 truck loads of grain valued at $159,418.
McCosker was sentenced to four years' jail.
However, McCosker appealed his conviction, arguing a juror had once been "best friends" with his separated wife and had prior knowledge of the matter.
In his Court of Appeal judgment, Justice Richard Chesterman said the case was evidence of the difficulty in selecting a jury in a small town.
"Goondiwindi is a small town and the appellant had lived there for many years. He was known to many of its inhabitants," he said.
Justice Chesterman said that at the start of the trial, two jurors were replaced after indicating they knew the accused socially.
Another juror indicated they knew one of the witnesses and was also replaced.
The juror McCosker claims knew his separated wife never indicated this at the start of the trail and McCosker himself failed to point it out, saying he didn't recognise her name on the jurors' list at the time.
He then recognised the juror's face once the trail was in progress but said he didn't advise the court for fear it would harm his case.
However, his separated wife provided the Court of Appeal with a sworn affidavit, advising that a juror who remained on the panel was once her best friend.
"After (McCosker) was admitted to the Goondiwindi Hospital on February 6, 2009, (the juror) went in to see him," she wrote.
"I spoke to (the juror) for an extended period ... at least 40 minutes to an hour, possibly longer.
"I discussed the pending court case ... I recall saying: `(McCosker's) guilty of something but I don't know what'.
"I know (the juror) has a very forceful personality."
However, in a two-to-one majority judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the conviction.
Justice Chesterman said there were strong pragmatic reasons for holding McCosker to his initial choice of not advising the courts he knew the juror, rather than allowing him to use that avenue only after he was found guilty.
However, Justice Cate Holmes disagreed, arguing it was most probable that McCosker did not know his former wife had previously told the juror she suspected him of being guilty.
