Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v JP (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1678 Hearing dates: 30 October 2013 Decision date: 30 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hall J Decision: Order made that Juror be discharged from jury pursuant to s 53A of the Jury Act
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - juror misconduct - Internet research by juror as to law - examination by judge of juror in question and foreperson - discharge of juror Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 Cases Cited: R v JP (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1679
R v Sio (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1414Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown)
JP (Accused)Representation: Counsel:
P Leask (Crown)
P Young SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Lex Fori Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s): 2011/235975
Judgment
At about 12.30pm on 30 October 2013, the jury sent a note which was marked as MFI-68. The note, written by the foreperson of the jury, referred to the fact that one juror had undertaken legal research by way of an Internet search.
The procedure then adopted pursuant to directions I gave on the above date was to have the Sheriff's officer request the foreperson to leave the jury room and accompany him to the Court. Following his examination, the Sheriff's officer was requested to follow the same procedure in order to have the juror in question brought into the courtroom.
At about 2.00pm on that date, I proceeded to conduct an examination of the foreperson pursuant to s 55DA of the Jury Act 1977 ("the Act").
The information provided by the foreperson in answer to questions which I directed to him has been extracted into the reasons for the order made under s 53C of the Act in R v JP (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1679 at [12].
I also proceeded with an examination of the juror in question. The questions and answers in relation to that examination have also been set out in R v JP (No 2) at [13].
The Statutory Provisions
Part 7A of the Jury Act is entitled "Discharge of Jurors". The provisions of ss 53A and 53B are concerned with the discharge of individual jurors.
Section 53A is concerned with the mandatory discharge of an individual juror. Pursuant to the provisions of that section, a court must discharge a juror if in the course of any trial:
"(a) The juror has engaged in misconduct in relation to the trial ..."
The term "misconduct" is defined in s 53A(2) to included:
"Conduct that constitutes an offence against this Act."
A juror who conducted legal research on the internet would be in breach of the trial directions which I gave at the commencement of the trial. It would also constitute a breach of the provisions of s 68C(1) and also s 68C(4) of the Act. In this respect, I respectfully agree and adopt what has been said in this regard in R v Sio (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1414 at [7] per Adamson J.
Both counsel for the Crown, and the accused, submitted that the juror referred to in MFI-68 had to be discharged. That accorded with the conclusion which I had reached following the examination of the juror in question conducted pursuant to s 55DA and expressed.
On 30 October 2013 I made an order that the relevant juror be discharged. I indicated that I would publish my reasons on a later date.
Following the completion of the examination, the juror in question was immediately separated from the jurors who were then in the jury room. Arrangements were made for the Sheriff's officer to retrieve her personal belongings from the jury room on her behalf.
The jury, constituted by the eleven remaining jurors, was brought back into Court and informed that the relevant juror had been discharged, and in that respect the jury were given a direction in line with the Criminal Bench Book direction at [1-515].
Finding and Order
The discharged juror engaged in misconduct in breach of s 68C of the Act. Upon that finding, on 30 October 2013 I made the following order:
Order that the juror be discharged from the jury pursuant to s 53A of the Jury Act 1977.
**********
- AGLC
- Regina v JP (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1678
- Case
- [2013] NSWSC 1678
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to consider whether the juror's actions constituted misconduct that was prejudicial enough to warrant the discharge of the juror and the potential ordering of a new trial. The key legal issue was whether the internet research conducted by the juror constituted a breach of the juror's duty to rely solely on the evidence presented in court and the judge's directions on the law. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the examination of the juror and the foreperson was sufficient to determine the impact of the misconduct on the fairness of the trial.
The court found that the juror's actions constituted misconduct, as it involved an improper attempt to inform themselves of the law beyond what was presented in court. After examining the juror and the foreperson, the court concluded that the misconduct did not prejudice the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court discharged the juror but did not order a new trial, finding that the integrity of the trial process had not been compromised to an extent that required a fresh trial. The defendant's conviction was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.