Six appeals were brought alleging various forms of irregularity by the jurors.
Held: Lord Judge said: ‘The verdict must be reached, according to the jury oath in accordance with the evidence. For this purpose each juror brings to the decision-making process, his or her own experience of life and general knowledge of the way things work in the real world; that is part of the stock-in-trade of the jury process, and the combination of the experience of a randomly selected group of 12 individuals, exercising their civic responsibility as a collective body, provides an essential strength of the system. However the introduction of extraneous material, that is non-evidential material, constitutes an irregularity. Examples . . include telephone calls into or out of the jury room, papers mistakenly included in the jury bundle, discussions between jurors and relatives or friends about the case, and in recent years, information derived by one or more jurors from the internet.’
Judges:
Lord Judge LCJ, Hughes LJ, Bean J
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Crim 1623, [2011] 1 WLR 200, [2010] 2 Cr App R 27, [2011] 2 All ER 83
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v B (CA 459/06) 27-May-2008
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court considered directions to be given to jurors as to the use of the internet whilst sitting as jurors. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General v Fraill and Another CACD 16-Jun-2011
Juror’s use of Facebook was contempt
The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420753