Read the jury’s question to the judge in the rape case against Jarryd Hayne after 21 hours of deliberation

The jury deliberating the fate of former NRL star Jarryd Hayne has asked whether ‘ignorance of the law’ is a ‘sufficient defence’ after failing to reach a unanimous decision after nearly six days of deliberations.

Mr Hayne was summoned to NSW District Court on Tuesday afternoon after the court received a jury note after more than 21 hours of deliberation.

The 35-year-old Dally-M winner had more than a dozen supporters in the public gallery.

The jury’s note said it had made “progress” but was still struggling to reach a unanimous decision.

“Dear Your Honor, we have voted again and while we have made progress, we are not unanimous,” Judge Graham Turnbull SC read to the court.

“We would like to clarify whether ignorance of the law is a sufficient defense.”

Judge Turnbull said the short answer to the question is “no,” but there was “a little more nuance” to it.

He told the jury to remember that the burden of proof is on the Crown’s attorneys, not the defense.

“The defendant has nothing to prove,” Judge Turnbull said.

“With regard to this case, neither the defendant nor the prosecution misunderstood that it was anything but illegal to force yourself on a woman without her consent, whether digitally or verbally.”

In no part of Mr Hayne’s evidence did he say he did not know it was illegal to have digital or verbal intercourse with someone without their consent, Judge Turnbull said.

He said if the jury accepts Mr Hayne’s evidence as ‘true or possibly true’ it constitutes an acquittal.

“I remind you that in the Crown case no consent was ever given to any sexual activity by word or conduct,” the judge said.

“You need to make sure you focus on the evidence in this case.”

Judge Turnbull told the jury earlier on Tuesday that if they have any issues, they should notify the court and seek further guidance.

He urged them to set aside stereotypes in the process and “only” consider the evidence they heard or saw.

“Only the evidence in this trial… you must be true to your oath,” the judge said.

“I don’t want this to be seen in any way as something intended to put any pressure on a zealous group chosen at random from the community who are the only ones who have heard or seen the evidence.”

It comes after the jury was given a “black direction” on Monday, after they sent the judge a note saying they were struggling to reach a unanimous decision.

“After long discussion and multiple notes, we are unable to make a decision,” the note read Monday.

“We are seeking guidance on how to proceed.”

Judge Turnbull gave the jury a so-called “black direction” on Monday, advising the group, if unable to reach a verdict after deliberations, to “achieve the utilitarian goal of reaching a verdict without putting undue pressure on the jurors to change their position. ghosts’.

“Jurors, I am told that you have not yet reached a verdict,” Judge Turnbull told the jury on Monday.

“I have the authority to absolve you from passing sentence, but I may only do so if I am satisfied that no real agreement can be reached after further consideration.”

Mr Hayne has pleaded not guilty to two counts of unauthorized sexual assault, with the jury hearing more than eight days’ worth of evidence.

The two-time Dally M winner denies sexually assaulting the woman at her home on the outskirts of Newcastle in September 2018, on the night of the NRL grand final, claiming they engaged in consensual sex acts.

The former footy star is accused of ripping off the woman’s pants before allegedly performing oral and digital sex acts on her without her consent, resulting in cuts and significant bleeding.