Page1

Journal of Criminal Law

2014
Judicial management of juror impropriety
Nick Taylor and Roderick Denyer
Subject: Criminal procedure
Keywords: Accountability; Impartiality; Jurors; Jury trial; isconduct; !ublic opinion
*J. Crim. L. 43 Abstract T"e debate surroundin# t"e utility o$ trial by jury is as
rele%ant as e%er& uc" criticism o$ t"e ability o$ 'urors to carry out t"eir task (as brou#"t
to t"e $ore $ollo(in# t"e "i#"ly publicised !ryce trial and t"e comments $rom )(eeney J
indicatin# a $undamental problem in 'urors* understandin# o$ t"eir role& +urt"ermore,
media attention surroundin# a steady stream o$ cases in%ol%in# 'uror misconduct "as
called into -uestion ("et"er jury trial can sur%i%e in its current $orm& T"is article
reco#nises t"at alt"ou#" juries are not a normati%e part o$ a $air trial, t"ey do "a%e
considerable %alue in en"ancin# public con$idence in t"e $airness o$ t"e criminal process,
particularly t"rou#" t"e perception o$ impartiality& I$ public support is lost, t"en t"e %alue
o$ jury mi#"t be lost (it" it& ."ilst t"e /a( Commission is ri#"tly considerin# "o(
'urors mi#"t be more prepared in ad%ance to carry out t"eir role e$$ecti%ely, t"is article
considers t"e current 'udicial approac" to dealin# (it" t"e practical issue o$ 'uror
impropriety once it "as occurred& T"rou#" lookin# at a series o$ trial and appeal cases it
can be seen t"at a $rame(ork "as de%eloped ("ic" seeks to ensure t"at trials are
derailed rarely ("ilst t"e impartiality o$ t"e jury is sa$e#uarded& It is maintained t"at in
emp"asisin# bot" actual and apparent impartiality t"e %ital element o$ public con$idence
in t"e e0istin# process can be preser%ed&
KeywordsJuries; Jury mana#ement; !ublic con$idence; Jury misconduct
As t"e $urore surroundin# t"e !ryce trial1 illustrated, trial by jury continues to be a
$ertile source o$ academic, pro$essional and political debate& In 1123 4ump"reys J
commented5 6I cannot brin# mysel$ to belie%e t"at t"ere are any persons 7("o (ould
%ote in $a%our o$ t"e abolition o$ trial by jury in serious cases8&2 In 1111, Darbys"ire
concluded t"at 6sentimental attac"ment to t"e symbol o$ t"e jury is dan#erous8& )"e
added t"at, 6t"e symbolic $unction o$ t"e jury $ar out(ei#"s its practical si#ni$icance8&9
Re$orms $ollo(in# t"e Auld Report,4 ("ic" increased t"e pool o$ t"ose -uali$yin# *J.
Crim. L. 44 $or jury ser%ice, "as #enerated case la(,2 and t"e 4ouse o$ /ords*
conclusions in R % Mirza3 t"at 'urors* deliberations remain sacrosanct like(ise "as
#enerated muc" academic discussion and appeal court time&: In 2002 t"e Department
$or Constitutional A$$airs; sou#"t %ie(s on ("et"er t"e rules surroundin# jury
con$identiality ou#"t to be amended or clari$ied by le#islation& No c"an#es $ollo(ed, but
t"e debate (as certainly not brou#"t to an end& In 2010 t"e <uropean Court o$ 4uman
Ri#"ts determined t"at jury %erdicts (ere compatible (it" Article 3 o$ t"e <uropean
Con%ention on 4uman Ri#"ts despite t"e absence o$ a reasoned %erdict pro%ided t"at
ot"er 6sa$e#uards8 (ere in place&1 In its 2012 Consultation !aper on Contempt o$
Court,10 t"e /a( Commission sou#"t %ie(s on aspects o$ t"e jury (it" particular
re#ard to 'uror misconduct and t"e ne( social media conte0t (it"in ("ic" juries must
operate& ore recently, $urt"er jury researc" by T"omas11 "as underscored t"e need
$or re$orm& .it"out doubt, scrutiny surroundin# t"e role o$ t"e jury is particularly acute
Page2
at t"e moment12 #i%en t"e considerable e0ternal t"reats to t"e impartiality o$ 'urors*
deliberations and, per"aps e-ually dama#in#, t"e perception o$ any partiality t"at may
ser%e to erode public con$idence& T"e jury still continue to "old t"e con$idence o$ t"e
public, seemin#ly more so t"an any ot"er branc" o$ t"e criminal 'ustice system, and it
(ould be dan#erous not to respect t"e importance o$ t"is& It does appear some("at
incon#ruous t"at t"e public "a%e suc" stron# $ait" in a system ("ic" lacks t"e le%els o$
accountability and openness seen in ot"er public institutions& Ar#uably, ("at encoura#es
public support is t"e belie$ t"at t"e process is $air& T"is article considers t"e mana#ement
o$ jury misconduct and impropriety as one key aspect o$ t"e $rame(ork surroundin#
jury trial t"at promotes public con$idence&
Public confidence and jury accountability
Trial by jury still retains considerable public con$idence19 in part t"rou#" its
representati%eness14 and also its percei%ed $airness&12 T"e $irst o$ t"ese *J. Crim. L.
45 core %alues, representati%eness, resides in t"e ability made a%ailable $or ordinary
citi=ens to play an important participatory role in t"e criminal process& 6Citi=ens still %ie(
t"e jury as "a%in# lar#er political and social $unctions t"at #o beyond t"e e$$icient
determination o$ #uilt and innocence&813 T"is %alue s"ould not be underestimated& As
arder notes, 6Countries, especially t"ose t"at aspire to bein# more democratic, "a%e
be#un to reco#nise t"e importance o$ "a%in# ordinary citi=ens participate in t"e criminal
'ustice system8&1: T"e domestic jury trial ensures t"at t"e #eneral public are #i%en a
%oice at t"e %ery "eart o$ t"e most serious criminal cases in t"e country& Ar#uments
remain about jury composition, but it is (it" re#ard to a second buttress o$ public
con$idence, t"e perception o$ $airness t"at is per"aps under more acute pressure&
T"e >ar Council $ound t"at t"e public (ere stron#ly o$ t"e %ie( t"at juries (ere trusted
to reac" correct decisions and produced a better 6-uality8 o$ 'ustice t"an trial by 'ud#e
alone&1; In lookin# at t"e supportin# reasons $or jury trial, Redmayne11 identi$ies ?not
e0clusi%ely@ a key aspect o$ ("at "elps to produce t"at positi%e perceptionAAt"at t"e
jury be #ood $actA$inders as $actA$indin# accuracy must clearly be a "i#" priority in any
$air trial process& T(el%e randomly selected indi%iduals are ar#uably more likely to
produce a broader ran#e o$ e0perience and e0pertise t"an a sin#le 'ud#e, and t"e
application o$ t"ese attributes to t"e e%idence presented produces a stron# $actA$indin#
body& To aid t"e cause o$ accurate $actA$indin# on t"e e%idence presented t"e process
must be seen to be impartial& acCoun and Tyler $ound t"at citi=ens* perception o$ a $air
jury procedure included t"e 6ability o$ its members to put aside personal biases8&20 T"e
jury must approac" ?and be seen to approac"@ t"e e%idence (it" an open,
uncommitted mind& T"ou#" suc" impartiality does not o$ itsel$ #uarantee accuracy it is
seen to be a basic element o$ a $air 'udicial process t"at t"e de$endant is a(are o$ t"e
case a#ainst "im and "as t"e opportunity to address it, so $actors beyond t"ose
presented in e%idence s"ould not be rele%ant& T"is idea o$ jury trial "olds public
con$idenceAApeople assume t"at 6$air procedures (ill produce $air outcomes8&21
T"e perception t"at jury trial is $air, "o(e%er, may be under increasin# pressure $rom
t"e seemin#ly increased likeli"ood (it" ("ic" in$ormation not #i%en in e%idence may $lo(
into or $rom (it"in t"e jury room& T"at suc" 6in$ormation8 mi#"t come in t"e (ay o$
t"reats to 'urors "as already seen t"e de%elopment o$ 'ud#eAonly trials in e0ceptional
circumstances&22 T"e e%eryday use o$ t"e internet and social media plat$orms "ei#"tens
Page3
$urt"er t"e potential $or e0ternal in$luences to act upon jury deliberations& *J. Crim. L.
46 As suc", t"at t"e jury per$orm t"eir deliberati%e role in secret mi#"t be di$$icult to
'usti$y as a 6$air8 procedure, $or it is not possible to discern ("at impact, i$ any, punctures
in t"e sealed unit o$ t"e jury room mi#"t "a%e& It is claimed t"at jury pri%acy is a %ital
aspect o$ ensurin# t"at $ull and $rank deliberation occurs but it also impedes our ability
to re%ie( t"e jury's approac" to t"e e%idence& 4o( can t"e presumed impartiality o$ an
apparently unaccountable jury $it (it"in an appropriate system o$ ad'udicationB +uller
described t"e main attribute o$ ad'udication as bein# t"e opportunity to present 6proo$s
and reasoned ar#uments8&29 T"e parties can participate in t"e decisionAmakin# process
by presentin# t"eir 6e%idence8 and t"e reasonin# ("ic" supports t"eir $actual ar#ument,
i$ t"ey so c"oose& 6Ad'udication is t"en, a de%ice ("ic" #i%es $ormal and institutional
e0pression to t"e in$luence o$ reasoned ar#ument 7824 )uc" an institution must itsel$
satis$y a test o$ reasonAA6(e demand o$ an ad'udicati%e decision a kind o$ rationality (e
do not e0pect o$ t"e results o$ contract or o$ %otin#8&22 T"ere$ore, 6it may be said t"at
t"e essence o$ ad'udication lies not in t"e manner in ("ic" t"e a$$ected party
participates in t"e decision but in t"e o$$ice o$ 'ud#e8&23 T"e rationality o$ t"at decisionA
makin# process can be seen in t"e respecti%e 'ud#ment, ("erein t"e 'ud#e (ill ?s"ould@
"a%e accounted $or t"e respecti%e in$luence o$ t"e ar#uments&
In t"ose cases ("ere a jury is present, it plays a key role in t"e ad'udication process,
but t"at one cannot #ain access to t"e reasonin# $or t"e 'urors* decision makes its
6rationality8 rat"er "arder to determine&2: Its impartiality amon#st ot"er t"in#s is
di$$icult to ascertain& An ob%ious response mi#"t be to remo%e jury secrecy& In 11;; it
(as commented t"at5
It may be t"at t"e abandonment o$ secrecy, $ar $rom destroyin# t"e system, may be all
t"at (ill sa%e it& T"e jury system (ill only sur%i%e in t"e end i$ t"e community accepts
t"at it is in t"e public interest t"at it s"ould sur%i%e& T"at, I su##est, can only be
determined ("en t"e community kno(s ("at juries do in t"e jury room&2;
4o(e%er, t"e 22 years t"at "a%e passed since t"is comment do not bear it out& !ublic
con$idence remains "i#"& Indeed, e0posin# t"e 'urors* deliberations to scrutiny mi#"t in
$act "arm public con$idence& As /ord )lynn commented in Mirza 5 6it seems plain t"at
discussion and disa#reement in public as to ("at "appened in t"e jury room is likely to
undermine public con$idence 78&21 Deliberations (it"in t"e jury room must be $rank
and open and may be less so in a more accountable en%ironment& I$ an open deliberati%e
process did admit o$ less #uarded comments, t"is mi#"t *J. Crim. L. 47 include some
unpalatable obser%ations& )uc" comments may be an essential part o$ t"e deliberations
but ("ic", seen in isolation, mi#"t only reduce public con$idence amon#st t"ose keen to
debate t"e issues $or t"emsel%es, only (it"out t"e essential $rame(ork surroundin# t"e
jury pro%ided by t"e trial 'ud#e&90
A less radical departure mi#"t be t"at t"e jury pro%ide reasons $or t"eir %erdict& It (as
anticipated in some -uarters t"at t"e <uropean Court o$ 4uman Ri#"ts ?<Ct4R@ mi#"t
demand suc" a mo%e&91 Cndoubtedly, t"ere (ould be di$$iculty in attemptin# to reconcile
t"e %aried conclusions o$ 12 'urors into a co"erent set o$ reasons t"at (ere anyt"in#
more t"an anodyne& In any e%ent, in Taxquet % Belgium,92 t"e <Ct4R accepted t"e idea
o$ an unreasoned %erdict, decidin# t"at, 6t"e Con%ention does not re-uire 'urors to #i%e
reasons $or t"eir decision and t"at article 3 does not preclude a de$endant $rom bein#
tried by a lay jury e%en ("ere reasons are not #i%en $or t"e %erdict8&99
Page4
Nonet"eless, 6trust in t"e jury is secured by t"e $act t"at it applies standards o$
ad'udication ("ic" are bot" #enerally $amiliar and (idely accepted8&94 T"ose $amiliar
standards o$ ad'udication include t"e basic standards o$ due process or natural 'ustice, or
("ic" are #i%en more e0plicit reco#nition t"rou#" Article 3& Amon#st ot"er t"in#s, t"is
demands t"at t"e de$endants kno( t"e case a#ainst t"em and are #i%en t"e opportunity
to test t"e e%idence& ore speci$ically, in relation to jury trial, t"e procedural
sa$e#uards include clear directions to t"e members o$ t"e jury as to t"eir task and t"e
-uestions t"ey must ans(er, as (ell as t"e a%ailability o$ substanti%e appeal& +urt"er, t"e
<Ct4R "as e0plicitly pro%ided t"at t"e tribunal must be impartial5 impartiality bein#
presumed unless t"ere is e%idence to t"e contrary& T"ere must also be apparent
impartiality (it" t"e system o$$erin# 6su$$icient #uarantees to e0clude any le#itimate
doubt in t"is respect8&92 Domestic la( "as re$lected t"e in$luence o$ t"e Con%ention in
t"is respect and t"e test to determine ("et"er bias, or t"e perception o$ bias "as
become operati%e, (as outlined by /ord !"illips in Re Medicame!ts 593
T"e court must $irst ascertain all t"e circumstances ("ic" "a%e a bearin# on t"e
su##estion t"at t"e 'ud#e (as biased& It must t"en ask itsel$ ("et"er t"ose
circumstances (ould lead a $air minded and in$ormed obser%er to conclude t"at t"ere
(as a real possibility, or a real dan#er, t"e t(o bein# t"e same, t"at t"e tribunal (as
biased&
T"ere$ore, as part o$ a $air process attractin# public trust, t"e impartiality o$ t"e jury
must be secured not t"rou#" t"e accountability o$ its reasonin#, *J. Crim. L. 48 but
t"rou#" t"e kno(led#e t"at it "as reasoned (it"in a procedural $rame(ork t"at seeks to
#uarantee impartiality or, at least, remo%e any doubts in t"is respect& T"e manner in
("ic" t"e trial court responds to alle#ations o$ bias is t"ere$ore a crucial aspect o$ t"e
$rame(ork ("ic" seeks to produce impartial decisionAmakin# and en"ance public
con$idence& 6T"ere is a mutual dependence bet(een belie$ in t"e correctness o$ $actual
decisions and trust in t"e body makin# t"em and its (isdom&89: T"e 'urors must resist
t"e temptation to carry out t"eir o(n researc" or use e%idence $rom any source ("ic"
(as not a part o$ t"e trial itsel$& I$ t"ere is bias e0"ibited by t"e jury, or e%en t"e
perception o$ bias, t"en t"e de$endant (ill not be seen to "a%e "ad a $air trial& 6It is clear
t"at t"e inte#rity o$ ad'udication is impaired i$ t"e arbiter 7$orms t"eories about ("at
"appened and conducts "is o(n $actual en-uiries&89;
!art o$ t"at $rame(ork must include t"e clarity and certainty (it" ("ic" t"e trial or
appellate 'ud#e seeks to deal (it" issues o$ jury misconduct or impropriety& Alle#ations
o$ bot" actual and apparent bias "a%e to be e$$ecti%ely ans(ered& It is essential t"at t"e
jury continue to be seen to be impartial& As Duckerman "as outlined5
juries are suited to be put in c"ar#e o$ ad'udicatin# on t"e merits because o$ t"e trust
t"ey command in t"e community& )ince t"e e$$icacy o$ any 'udicial system depends on
its ability to #enerate public con$idence in its 'ud#ments, t"e element o$ trust in t"e
tribunal is crucial&91
T"ou#" public trust is currently in%ested in a system t"at is based on pri%ate
deliberation, i$ t"at system is to (it"stand t"e turbulence presented by t"e ease and
speed o$ modern in$ormation $lo(s, t"e surroundin# $rame(ork must be robust and must
maintain trust in t"e impartiality o$ jury deliberation& T"e operation o$ jury trials need
not c"an#e pro%ided t"at t"ere is con$idence in t"e 'udicial mana#ement o$ t"e process&
T"e remainder o$ t"is article (ill consider part o$ t"at processAAt"e mana#ement o$
Page"
misconduct and impropriety&
The legal contet
T"e ability to disco%er and e$$ecti%ely deal (it" some $orms o$ jury impropriety is
ine%itably "ampered by t"e rule t"at jury deliberations must remain secret& T"is rule
"as bot" common la( and statutory $orce&
)ection ;?1@ o$ t"e Contempt o$ Court Act 11;1 states5
It is a contempt o$ court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars o$ statements made,
opinions e0pressed, ar#uments ad%anced or %otes cast by members o$ a jury in t"e
course o$ t"eir deliberations in any le#al proceedin#s&
Runnin# parallel to t"e abo%e is t"e common la( rule e0pressed by >ankes /J in #llis %
$e%eer 540
*J. Crim. L. 49 7t"e court (ill ne%er admit e%idence $rom 'urymen o$ t"e discussion
("ic" t"ey may "a%e "ad bet(een t"emsel%es ("en considerin# t"eir %erdict or o$ t"e
reasons $or t"eir decision 7once a %erdict "as been #i%en it ou#"t not to be open to an
indi%idual 'uryman to c"allen#e it or attempt to support it i$ c"allen#ed&
In Mirza,41 t"e 4ouse o$ /ords (as asked to consider t"e compatibility o$ t"e common
la( position (it" Article 3 o$ t"e <uropean Con%ention on 4uman Ri#"ts, and t"e
-uestion o$ t"e applicability o$ s& ; to t"e courts (as also considered& T"e $acts (ere
suc" t"at a$ter t"e trial "ad ended, one o$ t"e jury (rote a letter to trial counsel in
("ic" it (as claimed t"at ot"er members o$ t"e jury "ad been biased a#ainst t"e
de$endant on racial and cultural #rounds& T"e Court o$ Appeal "eld t"at s& ; pre%ented
t"em $rom in-uirin# into t"e matter on t"e basis t"at suc" in-uiry (ould constitute a
contempt o$ court& Re'ectin# t"at %ie(, /ord )teyn in t"e 4ouse o$ /ords said5
!roperly construed, )ection ;?1@ does not apply to t"e court o$ trial or to t"e Court o$
Appeal "earin# an appeal in t"at case& It cannot properly be read as cate#orisin# ("at
t"e court does in t"e course o$ its in%esti#ation as a contempt o$ t"e court itsel$&42
4o(e%er, alt"ou#" s& ; did not constitute a bar to in%esti#ation, t"e common la( did&
/ord 4ope said, 6ETF"e common la( rule ("ic" "olds t"at a$ter t"e %erdict "as been
deli%ered, e%idence directed to matters intrinsic to t"e deliberations o$ 'urors is
inadmissible must be applied8&49 +urt"ermore, 6attempts to so$ten t"e rule to ser%e t"e
interests o$ t"ose t"at claim t"ey (ere un$airly con%icted s"ould be resisted in t"e
#eneral public interest8&44 T"e conclusion o$ t"e ma'ority, t"ere$ore, (as t"at i$ any 'uror
"ad concerns relatin# to impropriety t"at s"ould be raised (it" t"e trial 'ud#e be&ore t"e
%erdict (as #i%en, $or t"e %erdict is t"e conclusion to ("ic" t"e jury "a%e a#reed is t"e
culmination o$ t"eir deliberations&42 To breac" t"e sanctity o$ t"e jury room mi#"t
impact upon one o$ t"e key reasons ("y juries en'oy suc" public con$idence&
Cltimately, /ord 4ope ar#ued, t"e common la( rule ensured t"e jury 6could continue to
per$orm t"eir %ital $unction o$ sa$e#uardin# t"e liberty o$ e%ery indi%idual8&43
/ord )teyn*s dissentin# opinion (as, ne%ert"eless, a po(er$ul one, in ("ic" "e indicated
t"at t"e conclusion o$ t"e ma'ority reasonin# (as t"at mistakes (ere a price (ort"
payin# $or t"e preser%ation o$ t"e jury system& Con%ersely, "e emp"asised t"at $ollo(in#
t"e Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1119, 6t"e p"ilosop"y became $irmly
establis"ed t"at t"ere is a positi%e duty on 'ud#es, ("en t"in#s "a%e #one seriously
Page'
(ron# in t"e criminal 'ustice system, to do e%eryt"in# possible to put it ri#"t8&4: Allo(in#
t"e Court o$ Appeal to in%esti#ate into t"e deliberations o$ 'urors ("ere alle#ations o$
misconduct "a%e occurred a$ter t"e %erdict "as been *J. Crim. L. 50 #i%en, (ould, it
(as ar#ued, up"old t"is duty& /ord )teyn noted t"at suc" cases (ould be e0ceptional,
"o(e%er, and t"at in t"e ma'ority o$ situations jury secrecy (ould remain intact&
)imilar debate "as been aired in t"e C)A& +ederal Rule o$ <%idence 303?b@ states t"at a
'uror may not testi$y about any matter occurrin# durin# t"e jury's deliberations ot"er
t"an ("ere e0traneous pre'udicial material (as brou#"t to t"e jury's attention, ("ere
t"ere (as outside in$luence brou#"t to bear or a mistake made in enterin# t"e %erdict&
Debate "as centred on ("et"er t"e sanctity o$ t"e jury is unconstitutional based upon
t"e $act t"at t"e )i0t" Amendment pro%ides a de$endant (it" a ri#"t to an impartial and
competent jury& T"e leadin# case o$ Ta!!er % (!ited )tates4; establis"es an approac"
not dissimilar to t"at adopted in Mirza* !ri%acy o$ jury room deliberation remains
sacrosanct&
uc" "as been (ritten about t"e 'ud#ment in Mirza and t"is article does not seek to
re"earse t"ose ar#uments a#ain& 4o(e%er, ("at is clear $rom t"at 'ud#ment is t"at trial
procedures to encoura#e t"e reportin# o$ misconduct and e$$orts to neutralise its e$$ects
?or percei%ed e$$ect@ are crucial& T"e ar#uments t"at "a%e been persuasi%e t"us $ar in
t"e C)A are t"at de$endants are not denied a constitutionally $air trial because t"at is
protected at ot"er points in t"e process, $or e0ample, at t"e +oir direjury selection,
durin# t"e trial itsel$ t"rou#" 'uror reportin# to t"e court or 'uror obser%ation by t"e
court and postA%erdict impeac"ment&41 T"at t"e attempts to ensure impartiality in
<n#land and .ales $all almost e0clusi%ely on t"e 'ud#e*s mana#ement o$ t"e trial open
t"at mana#ement up to closer scrutiny&20
!anagement of jury irregularities "#
Jurors undertake an oat"22 to try t"e case accordin# to t"e e%idence alone and are
#i%en $urt"er #uidance and directions by t"e 'ud#e as to "o( t"ey s"ould $ul$il t"e
promise, $or e0ample, by not discussin# t"e case (it" anyone outside o$ t"e jury room
or carryin# out t"eir o(n in%esti#ations so t"at t"ey are not in$luenced by e0ternal
$actors&29 Ne%ert"eless, t"ere *J. Crim. L. 51 are many reasons, intentional or
ot"er(ise, ("y t"ese strict re-uirements are not al(ays ad"ered to& +or e0ample, ("ilst
a particular 'uror may carry out "is or "er o(n researc" in clear contra%ention o$ t"e
directions #i%en, ot"er 'urors may become a(are unintentionally o$ in$ormation beyond
t"at pro%ided in court& ."en and "o( t"ese issues come to t"e attention o$ t"e court
determines t"e approac" to be taken& An in$le0ible approac" t"at states t"at a jury
e0posed to 6outside8 in$luence s"ould be instantly dismissed (ould not retain public
con$idence& T"e administration o$ 'ustice (ould #rind to a "alt (ere it so simple to brin#
serious criminal cases to an abrupt end& ."at t"e courts "a%e sou#"t to ac"ie%e "as an
internal and an e0ternal element& Internally, t"at is in t"e trial process itsel$, t"e court
"as to ensure $airness to t"e de$endantAAt"at t"e jury's deliberations do not take into
account material beyond t"at pro%ided in e%idence and to ("ic" t"e de$endant "as not
"ad an opportunity to respond& T"e e0ternal element is t"at t"e process o$ deliberation
must be percei%ed more (idely to be ob'ecti%eAAt"at t"e deliberations are based upon
t"e e%idence alone or, ("ere t"at is not t"e case, t"at t"ere are no lin#erin# doubts t"at
e0ternal $actors may "a%e played a part&
Page,
I$ an alle#ation o$ misconduct or impropriety is made duri!g t"e trial t"e 'ud#e "as t"e
duty to in%esti#ate24 and consider "o( $ar t"is "as a$$ected, or mi#"t a$$ect t"eir
deliberations&22 As t"e case is still li%e, t"e situation can be dealt (it" on its merits and
t"e 'ud#e can react accordin#ly eit"er by issuin# $urt"er (arnin#s as appropriate or
dismissin# indi%idual 'urors23 or t"e entire jury&2: In ot"er (ords, i$ t"e approac" is
disco%ered be$ore t"e %erdict is #i%en and "as been brou#"t to t"e court*s attention
s(i$tly it is still possible to ensure t"at $airness and impartiality are up"eld and seen to
be soAAt"us retainin# public con$idence& As /ord >in#"am stated5
T"e "i#" re#ard in ("ic" juries are "eld depends on t"eir collecti%e inte#rity and on t"e
indi%idual inte#rity o$ t"eir members& I$ a source o$ poison is identi$ied in time it may
?and o$ten is@ possible $or t"e poison to be isolated and neutralised& >ut (e cannot %ie(
(it"out #ra%e unease %erdicts reac"ed by a jury ("en (e kno( t"at t"ere (as a
source o$ poison ("ic" ?because its presence (as unkno(n@ could not be isolated and
neutralised, ("en (e do not kno( "o( $ar t"e poison may "a%e spread and ("en (e do
not kno( ("at e$$ect it may "a%e "ad&2;
It is crucial t"at ("en t"e 'ud#e is e0ercisin# "is or "er discretion to issue $urt"er
directions or dismiss 'urors t"is is done $ollo(in# a $ull in%esti#ation o$ t"e issues& Actual
or apparent bias can only be neutralised e$$ecti%ely i$ t"e 'ud#e can respond, and be
seen to respond, to all t"e speci$ic issues arisin# on t"e $acts& As noted by /ord Go$$5 6t"e
e$$ect o$ "is (arnin# is not merely to ensure t"at t"e 'urors do not allo( any possible
bias to a$$ect t"eir minds, but also to pre%ent any lack o$ con$idence in t"e inte#rity o$
*J. Crim. L. 52 t"e jury8&21 T"e Cro(n Court !rotocol30 pro%ides #eneral #uidance on
"o( a court s"ould response to jury irre#ularities5 an analysis o$ t"e case la(
illustrates t"e practice&
Using additional materials
Concern surroundin# 'urors makin# re$erence to material about t"e de$endant or to
issues pertinent to t"e trial, ("ic" t"ey "a%e seen outside o$ t"e trial itsel$ is not ne(&
4o(e%er, t"e ease o$ access to researc" on t"e internet "as "ei#"tened t"is concern and
is e0ercisin# t"e aut"orities in a number o$ 'urisdictions&31 In 2019 a sur%ey o$
Australian 'ud#es, ma#istrates, court administrators and ot"er stake"olders 6identi$ied
t"e potential $or juries to misuse social media durin# trials as, by $ar, t"e sin#le most
si#ni$icant c"allen#e t"at social media poses to t"e courts8&32 T"e ubi-uitous nature o$
t"e internet "as prompted domestic courts to de%elop directions on jury mana#ement
t"at speci$ically mention t"at t"e internet s"ould not be consulted&39 T"ese are a %ital
part o$ t"e procedural $rame(ork surroundin# jury trial t"at seek to maintain its
inte#rity& Ine%itably, e%en an e0plicit direction is not in$allible and ("ere e0ternal
materials are consulted t"e 'ud#e must act (it" a %ie( to maintainin# or reAestablis"in#
jury room inte#rity and t"e percei%ed $airness o$ t"e deliberations&34
*J. Crim. L. 53 An inability to restore jury room inte#rity can be seen in R %
T%a-rar*32 At t"e end o$ t"e appellant*s e%idence t"e 'ud#e recei%ed a note $rom a
'uryman indicatin# t"at some t"ree (eeks earlier a $ello( 'uror "ad been lookin# at a
(ebsite and $ound t"at t"e de$endant "ad a pre%ious con%iction $or money launderin#&
T"at in$ormation (as in $act inaccurate& T"e 'ud#e e0plained t"is to t"e jury, addin#
t"at alt"ou#" t"e de$endant did "a%e a pre%ious con%iction it (as irrele%ant to t"e
matters be$ore t"em and t"ey s"ould put it out o$ t"eir minds& 4o(e%er, alt"ou#" t"e
Page.
'ud#e mi#"t ri#"tly "a%e $ormed t"e %ie( t"at t"e jury (ere able to do t"is, t"at t"e
matter "ad not been reported $or t"ree (eeks is o$ clear concern& Hb'ecti%ely, it cannot
be said (it" su$$icient certainty t"at t"e jury "ad not $ormed an ad%erse %ie( o$ t"e
de$endant durin# t"e t"reeA(eek period t"at t"en impacted upon t"eir %ie( o$
subse-uent e%idence& Additionally, t"at no 'uror sa( it appropriate to report t"e incident
$or suc" a len#t" o$ time clearly con$licts (it" t"e 'ud#e*s instruction t"at irre#ularities
s"ould be brou#"t to t"e attention o$ t"e 'ud#e immediately& T"e con%iction (as ri#"tly
-uas"ed as t"e inte#rity o$ t"e jury could no lon#er be reAestablis"ed&
>y (ay o$ contrast is R % Mc$o!!el*33 A$ter retirement it (as disco%ered t"at t"e jury
(ere in possession o$ %arious pieces o$ in$ormation do(nloaded $rom t"e internet&
Interestin#ly, t"is disco%ery "ad not been %olunteered by any member o$ t"e jury& In
open court t"e 'ud#e asked ("et"er t"ere "ad been any $urt"er internet searc"es& T"e
jury indicated t"at t"ere "ad& 4e t"en considered t"e totality o$ t"e ne( in$ormation and
decided not to disc"ar#e t"e jury and t"at t"e situation could be dealt (it" by a stron#
(arnin#& T"e Court o$ Appeal endorsed t"is action5
T"e $act t"at some members o$ t"e jury "ad carried out pri%ate researc"es, contrary to
t"e 'ud#e*s e0press direction, is undoubtedly troublin#, but is not by itsel$ a reason to
disc"ar#e t"e jury, unless eit"er t"ere are #rounds $or t"inkin# t"at t"ey "a%e ac-uired
in$ormation t"at mi#"t "a%e lead t"em to reac" a %erdict ot"er(ise t"an on t"e e%idence
or t"ere are #rounds $or t"inkin# t"at one or more o$ t"em mi#"t disre#ard a clear
(arnin# $rom t"e 'ud#e not to repeat t"e process&3:
T"e nature o$ t"e in$ormation obtained appeared to be crucial& It related to in$ormation
about 6denial as a de$ence8 and penalties $or dru# o$$ences neit"er o$ ("ic" (as
considered to be pre'udicial to t"e de$endant& T"ere (as no e%idence to su##est t"at
ne( directions $rom t"e 'ud#e (ould not be $ollo(ed&3; T"ou#" one mi#"t -uestion t"is
in li#"t o$ t"e $act t"at it (as not a jury member ("o "i#"li#"ted t"e problem in t"e $irst
instance, unlike in T%a-rar, t"is (as $actual material o$ a #eneral nature rat"er t"an a
tra(l $or in$ormation about t"e case itsel$& Hn t"at basis t"ere (as said to be no actual
or apparent bias& It can be ar#ued t"at jury members makin# searc"es o$ $actual, nonA
pre'udicial material re$lects a "ealt"y desire on t"eir part to take t"eir role seriously and
deli%er a %erdict to t"e best o$ t"eir ability&
*J. Crim. L. 54 T"e distinction bet(een ("at is appropriate internet use and ("at
amounts to inappropriate researc" needs $urt"er clari$ication& In recent years #uidance
"as been pro%ided to 'ud#es and updated on a number o$ occasions about "o( t"ey
s"ould approac" t"e task o$ (arnin# t"e jury about accessin# e0ternal in$ormation& In
2003 t"e Consolidated Criminal !ractice Direction in$ormed 'ud#es t"at it (as 6essential8
to (arn 'urors o$ t"e dan#ers o$ conductin# t"eir o(n in%esti#ations and, $ollo(in# R %
T%om/so!,31 made it clear t"at 'urors s"ould report misconduct be$ore t"e case is
concluded ot"er(ise it may not be possible to put matters ri#"t& T"e Cro(n Court >enc"
>ook ad%ises 'ud#es to #i%e e0amples o$ t"e type o$ pro"ibited conduct to make it e%er
clearer& It states5 6'urors s"ould not discuss t"e case (it" anyone, not least $amily and
$riends ("ose %ie(s t"ey trust, ("en t"ey are a(ay $rom court, eit"er $ace to $ace or
o%er t"e telep"one, or o%er t"e internet %ia c"at lines or, $or e0ample, +acebook or
y)pace or T(itter8&:0
It "as to be accepted t"at t"e internet is no( a central part o$ t"e li%es o$ many and it
may not be realistic to assume t"at 'urors (ill re$rain o$ usin# t"e internet durin# t"e
Page0
period o$ t"e trial&:1 As !attenden su##ests5 6>ecause a total ban may seem
unreasonable to 'urors, it is likely to be i#nored 78&:2 T"e emp"asis o$ (arnin#s "as to
be upon t"e nature o$ appropriate use as t"e >enc" >ook #uidance indicates&:9 T"is
more nuanced approac" is to be (elcomed& It s"ould also be t"e case, "o(e%er, t"at
suc" (arnin#s s"ould be repeated at appropriate points in t"e trial and, importantly, t"e
reasons be"ind suc" (arnin#s e0plained&:4 To t"e 'uror t"e reasons ("y t"ey s"ould not
en#a#e (it" ot"ers in%ol%ed in t"e case mi#"t be readily apparent, but it may be less
ob%ious ("y t"ey cannot discuss it (it" t"ose ("o "a%e no connection at all to t"e
proceedin#s& In addition, e%idence (ould also appear to su##est t"at a (ritten copy o$
t"e directions is use$ul to 'urors& Darbys"ire*s summary o$ t"e researc" su##ested t"at5
It is (ell kno(n t"at audible in$ormation is lost soon a$ter receipt& .ritten instructions do
not reduce deliberation time but t"ey result in better compre"ension, retention and
application& T"ey make 'urors more satis$ied and e$$icient and t"ey participate in "i#"er
-uality deliberations&:2
*J. Crim. L. 55 T"e re#ular pro%ision o$ clear directions (ill bot" $acilitate t"e task o$
t"e jury and pro%ide t"e necessary procedural $rame(ork to $oster trust in t"e inte#rity
o$ t"e system& Not only do 'urors need to be clear about t"eir role, but t"e public too
need to be con$ident t"at t"e jury are per$ormin# t"eir role a#ainst clear standards and
e0pectations&
T"e /a( Commission considers ("et"er it (ould be appropriate to introduce a speci$ic
o$$ence o$ intentionally seekin# in$ormation related to t"e case t"e 'uror is tryin#&:3
)imilar pro%isions e0ist in certain Australian states and (ould certainly make clear to
'urors t"e se%erity o$ t"is type o$ misconduct&:: 4o(e%er, i$ impartiality is seen as a key
component o$ public con$idence in juries, t"en educatin# t"e jury in "o( to carry out
t"eir task to ensure $airness rat"er t"an t"e ne#ati%e approac" o$ punis"ment mi#"t do
more to retain t"at con$idence& Ar#uably, criminalisin# t"is type o$ misconduct (ould
simply ensure t"at it is less likely to come to li#"t, and collecti%e jury inte#rity depends
upon 'urors not only per$ormin# t"eir o(n task in accordance (it" t"e procedural
$rame(ork, but alertin# t"e court to instances ("en t"ey $eel t"is "as not "appened&
)u##estions t"at t"e la( is in"ibitin# candour in t"e jury room, ("ic" t"e t"reat o$
criminal sanctions mi#"t brin#, could pro%e detrimental to (ider support $or t"e jury&
+urt"er, t"e ci%ic responsibility aspect o$ jury ser%ice needs to be emp"asised more
clearly, and seekin# 'uror responsibility t"rou#" t"e t"reat o$ criminal prosecutions mi#"t
only add to t"e burden t"at many no( %ie( jury ser%ice to be&:;
In addition to more nuanced directions about t"e scope o$ 'urors* commitments, per"aps
("at t"e T%a-rar case mi#"t also su##est is t"at 'urors need to be made more $ully
a(are o$ t"eir duties to report alle#ed misconduct and "o( t"ey s"ould do t"is& As
T"omas disco%ered, 6a substantial proportion o$ 'urors said t"ey (ould not kno(, or (ere
uncertain ("at to do i$ somet"in# improper occurred8&:1 4o(e%er, it is not inconcei%able
t"at many 'urors (is"in# to 6in$orm8 on t"eir peers mi#"t $eel reluctant to do so #i%en
t"at t"ey "a%e to maintain a (orkin# relations"ip (it" t"em, potentially o%er a number
o$ (eeks&;0 Considerin# t"e issue o$ apparent bias, t"ere must be a procedure instituted
("ere 'urors can report t"eir concerns in con$idence& T"e /a( Commission posits t"e
idea o$ drop bo0es t"at can be accessed a(ay $rom ot"er 'urors&;1 +or con%enience and
con$identiality it (ould be e-ually appropriate i$ 'urors (ere able to eAmail t"eir
concerns, t"ou#" o$ course t"e irony o$ encoura#in# internet use in t"is situation is
apparent& 4o(e%er, as stated abo%e, t"e ad%ice to 'urors about t"e internet s"ould be
Page11
$ocused on appropriate use, *J. Crim. L. 56 not a pro"ibition& )ome indi%idual 'urors
(ill ine%itably seek recourse to materials ("ic" t"ey s"ould not see, but con$idence can
be maintained i$ t"e public are content t"at 'urors are able to, and do report problems,
and t"at t"e 'ud#e deals (it" t"em e$$ecti%ely&
Improper approa!es"ontat d#ring t!e trial
T"e Criminal Justice Act 2009 introduced t"e possibility o$ 'ud#eAonly trials in situations
("ere t"ere is a real and present dan#er o$ jury tamperin#&;2 Despite bein# a
contro%ersial mo%e it (as anticipated t"at it (ould only occur in e0ceptional
circumstances&;9 To remain e0ceptional, "o(e%er, it is important t"at improper
approac"es to 'urors durin# t"e trial are appropriately dealt (it" to ensure impartiality&
In R % T%or/e,;4 in%ol%in# a multiA"anded conspiracy to de$raud, t"ere (ere t"ree
separate improper approac"es to di$$erent members o$ t"e jury durin# t"e course o$ t"e
trial& T"e last o$ t"ese (as durin# t"e summin# up& T"e 'ud#e separated t"at 'uror and
asked "im i$ "e $elt t"at "e could properly and $airly #o on& T"ere (ere $urt"er
submissions and t"e 'ud#e "ad t"e ("ole jury back and asked t"em ("et"er as a body
t"ey could put t"ese matters out o$ t"eir mind and try t"e case on t"e e%idence& ;2 T"e
'urors $elt t"ey could& Hn appeal, t"e Court o$ Appeal re#arded it as important t"at t"e
'urors concerned "ad immediately reported matters to t"e 'ud#e5 a $act t"at re$lected
(ell on t"eir inte#rity& 4o(e%er, t"e initial approac" o$ t"e trial 'ud#e "ad been
inade-uate& Hn bein# made a(are o$ t"e approac", se#re#atin# t"e 'uror and, (it"out
consultin# counsel, askin# "im i$ "e $elt able to continue (as simply not enou#" $or t"e
'ud#e to take an in$ormed decision on action appropriate to neutralise t"e problem& It
(as only t"rou#" t"e ar#uments o$ counsel t"at a more robust and appropriate course
(as taken ("ic" in%ol%ed consultations (it" counsel; $urt"er in-uiries into t"e nature o$
t"e incident; and a consultation (it" t"e jury as a ("ole& T"e Cro(n Court !rotocol on
Jury Irre#ularities supports t"is, assertin# t"at consultation (it" ad%ocates s"ould take
place 6unless t"ere is a #ood reason not to do so8&;3 Hnly t"en could t"e robust (arnin#
to t"e jury be seen as appropriate to counter any undue in$luence or t"e perception
t"at t"e 'ud#e "ad made up "is mind at t"e outset (it"out a $ull appraisal o$ t"e
position& >y (ay o$ addition, t"e Court o$ Appeal stated t"at a 'uror*s note ou#"t to be
discussed (it" t"at 'uror be$ore it is s"ared (it" t"e entire jury and, as a matter o$
#ood practice, 'urors* notes s"ould be timed and dated& T"is action, unlike materials
$ound in t"e jury room, allo(s t"e 'ud#e to determine t"e e0tent o$ t"e problem& I$ no
ot"er 'urors are a(are o$ t"e approac", t"en it mi#"t be prudent to keep it t"at (ay and
dismiss t"e indi%idual 'urorAAt"is (ould establis" con$idence t"at t"e 6poison8 "ad not
in$ected t"e jury as a ("ole& 4o(e%er, i$ t"e 'uror is to remain, t"en t"e jury as a
("ole s"ould be *J. Crim. L. 57 #i%en t"e rele%ant directions& I$ a 'uror is -uestioned
separately, t"is s"ould be done in open court&;:
T"e de#ree o$ in-uiry necessary (as #i%en $urt"er #loss in R % 2amma!s*;; A$ter t"e
close o$ e%idence, t(o 'urors sent a note to t"e 'ud#e sayin# t"at a$ter court t"e
pre%ious day t"ey "ad $elt intimidated by t"e actions o$ a #roup o$ men and t"ey $elt t"at
one o$ t"at #roup mi#"t "a%e been connected (it" t"e de$endant& In-uiry re%ealed t"at
t"is (as unlikely& T"e 'ud#e re$used to disc"ar#e t"e jury takin# t"e %ie( t"at tellin#
t"em t"at t"ere (as not"in# to connect t"e men (it" t"e de$endant (as su$$icient and
t"at t"ey s"ould not allo( t"e actions o$ ot"ers to pre'udice t"em& T"e con%iction (as
Page11
up"eld, but t"e Court o$ Appeal commented on ("at more t"e 'ud#e mi#"t "a%e done5
4e could "a%e asked t"em to identi$y precisely ("at (as said to t"em and by ("om5 "e
could "a%e asked t"em ("et"er t"ey "ad been in$luenced and ("et"er a report o$ t"e
incident "ad been passed to any ot"er members o$ t"e jury5 "e could "a%e asked t"e
jury ("et"er any o$ t"em $elt intimidated or ("et"er t"ey or any o$ t"em $elt t"at t"eir
ability to imply impartial 'ud#ment to t"e e%idence (as compromised&;1
T"e court must ensure t"at impartiality is maintained in $act and perception& T"e court
must deal (it" t"e practical problem be$ore it, but also must be seen to "a%e been
e$$ecti%e in doin# so& T"e court $ailed to ensure t"is in R % Brow!*10 T(o 'urors
complained about apparently improper remarks directed to t"em by members o$ t"e
de$endant*s $amily durin# t"e lunc" break& T"e 'ud#e caused in-uiries to be made by a
police o$$icer and t"e t(o 'urors made statements& In open court "e t"en asked t"e
assembled 'urors to consider t(o -uestions directed to ascertainin# ("et"er anyt"in#
t"ey "ad "eard about t"ose approac"es a$$ected t"eir ability to try t"e case $airly& 4e
asked t"em to put up t"eir "ands i$ t"e ans(er (as 6yes8& No one responded& T"e Court
o$ Appeal noted t"at t"is 6may not "a%e been t"e best (ay o$ dealin# (it" t"e
problem8&11 It is not reasonable to assume t"at i$ 'urors "a%e a concern t"ey (ould be
"appy to raise it publicly& T"e jury ou#"t to "a%e been #i%en time to consider t"e issue
indi%idually and pri%ately&
T"e case is also important $or t"ree ot"er obser%ations& +irst, it is not open to a
de$endant to obtain t"e disc"ar#e o$ a jury by deliberately creatin# some #round o$
$riction bet(een "im and t"em& )econdly, in order $or a 'ud#e to conclude t"at t"e
de$endant is responsible $or t"e problem ("ic" "as arisen 6t"e circumstances must eit"er
be a#reed or ascertained by t"e 'ud#e to e0ist& T"ey cannot be assumed simply because
t"ere is a prima $acie case ("ic" t"e de$endant disputes8&12 4o(e%er, -uite "o( t"e
'ud#e is to set about $indin# t"e $acts is less t"an clear& T"irdly, a 'ud#e is entitled to
"a%e in mind as a back#round $actor t"e e0pense o$ a retrial and t"e emotional strain
("ic" mi#"t be placed upon %arious *J. Crim. L. 58 participants in t"e trial t"ou#"
t"ese are clearly not determinati%e&19 Indeed, t"ey must come second to ensurin#
impartiality is seen to be ac"ie%ed&
It may be t"at in%esti#ation into ("o is responsible $or t"e approac"es t"at "a%e been
made to 'urors may yield not"in#& In suc" instances t"e 'ud#e, as in R % Morriso!,14
mi#"t ri#"tly conclude t"at t"e better approac" is not to delay t"e trial $urt"er, but to
proceed $ollo(in# appropriate steps bein# taken& T"is (ould include -uestionin# t"e
members o$ t"e jury about t"eir ability to continue per$ormin# t"eir role e$$ecti%ely, and
t"e 'ud#e clearly indicatin# t"at ("ere t"ere (as no e%idence t"at t"e accused (as
responsible $or t"e approac"es t"e jury s"ould not speculate $urt"er&12R % 3%yte13
also indicates t"at it is better $or t"e 'ud#e to ask 'urors openly i$ t"ey are able to decide
t"eir %erdict impartially rat"er t"an presume t"at t"is is t"e case i$ no $urt"er concerns
are raised& ."ere a 'ud#e does ask -uestions o$ jury members, t"is (ould normally be
t"rou#" t"e $oreman& 4o(e%er, in R % A//ia%,1: t"e Court o$ Appeal "eld t"at t"ere (as
no reason ("y eac" indi%idual 'uror could not be asked ("et"er "e or s"e $elt
intimidated in t"e circumstances t"at pertained& !ro%ided t"at t"e 'ud#e "as adopted an
open procedure, "as consulted (it" counsel and "as taken steps to address t"e issues
("ic" arise, t"e Court o$ Appeal (ill be slo( to inter%ene&1;
T"e e0tent o$ t"e trial 'ud#e*s -uestionin# is clearly caseAspeci$ic, but it is important t"at
Page12
e%en i$ t"e 'ud#e is satis$ied t"at t"e 'uror is and can remain impartial t"is must be
ob'ecti%ely assured too& In R % 4-e11 a 'uror (as spotted "a%in# a drink (it" a member
o$ t"e public ("o "ad been present in court durin# t"e course o$ le#al ar#ument "eld in
t"e absence o$ t"e jury& T"e 'uror told t"e 'ud#e t"at t"e man (as "er "usband and t"e
'ud#e declined to -uestion "er $urt"er& Alt"ou#" entitled to presume t"at t"e 'uror (as
$ollo(in# directions appropriately in t"e absence o$ e%idence to t"e contrary, it (ould
"a%e been better i$ t"e 'ud#e "ad asked some more -uestions at t"e time to rein$orce
t"at position& A#ain, it is a scenario ("ere t"e perception o$ impartiality must be clearly
rein$orced& )imilarly in R % Blac-well100 t"e e0tent o$ t"e in%esti#ations (ere "eld to be
insu$$icient, but t"is time (ere $atal to t"e con%iction& A $emale 'uror (as seen talkin# to
a man ?later disco%ered to be "er $iancI@ ("o "ad been present in court, possibly
includin# times ("en t"e jury (ere absent& It (as clear t"at t"e t(o parties "ad
discussed t"e case& T"e 'ud#e dismissed t"e 'uror, but re'ected an application to
disc"ar#e t"e ("ole jury& T"e Court o$ Appeal "eld t"at t"e lack o$ detailed in-uiry o$
t"e indi%idual 'uror or indeed any -uestionin# o$ t"e jury as a ("ole (as $atal& It is
su##ested t"at alt"ou#" an opportunity may e0ist in cases o$ e0ternal in$luence $or *J.
Crim. L. 59 dismissin# an indi%idual 'uror and allo(in# t"e remainin# 'urors to continue
(it"out "indrance, t"is mo%e must be taken (it" special care& In t"is case it (as not
possible $or t"e 'ud#e to determine "o( $ar any contamination "ad spread& As suc",
t"ere could not be con$idence in t"e ob'ecti%ity o$ t"e jury's deliberations& <%en i$ t"e
'ud#e is satis$ied t"at t"ere is no $urt"er contamination it is essential t"at t"e reasonable
obser%er also belie%es t"at t"e jury remain impartial and t"is re-uires a robust
approac" by t"e 'ud#e&
T"is "as been emp"asised more clearly in R % Mears*101 A#ain a $emale 'uror "ad
contact (it" "er $iancI durin# t"e trial about issues ("ic" "e (as a(are o$ as a member
o$ t"e public in t"e court, but about ("ic" s"e, as a member o$ t"e jury, (as e0cluded
$rom "earin#& It appeared t"at bot" parties kne( t"at t"eir actions (ere (ron#& T"e
'ud#e, ("en in%esti#atin# t"e issue, satis$ied "imsel$ t"at t"ere (as no direct e%idence
o$ contamination and t"ere$ore re$used to disc"ar#e t"e jury& T"e Court o$ Appeal
emp"asised t"at t"e test in Re Medicame!ts re-uired t"at t"e $airAminded, independent
and in$ormed obser%er (ould need to be satis$ied t"at t"e jury could carry out t"eir
task (it"out takin# into account t"e e0traneous material& T"e 'ud#e could not substitute
"is o(n %ie( o$ t"e $acts& T"e Court o$ Appeal noted5
T"ere (as no direct e%idence t"at in$ormation or opinions deri%ed $rom discussions
bet(een t"e 'uror and "er $iancI "ad in$iltrated t"e jury, but 7t"ere (as a risk t"at t"at
"ad occurred& .e do not t"ink t"at concerns o$ t"at kind are capable o$ bein# allayed by
t"e $act t"at ("en -uestioned by t"e 'ud#e none o$ t"e ot"er 'urors admitted to "a%in#
been told anyt"in#&102
T"e court also noted, (it" some surprise, t"at #i%en t"at t"e 'uror admitted passin#
some in$ormation directly to anot"er 'urorAAand ot"er 'urors may "a%e "eardAAt"at t"is
"ad not been brou#"t to t"e attention o$ t"e court& T"ese $acts re$lect clearly t"at t"e
'ud#e*s belie$ in t"e jury remainin# uncontaminated is not enou#"; it must also be seen
to be so&
$%#iring in&ormation inad'ertentl(
Hn occasion t"e jury may become a(are o$ in$ormation inad%ertently& +or e0ample, in R
Page13
% Boyes,109 at t"e end o$ a summin#Aup in a rape case, t"e complainant*s mot"er
s"outed $rom t"e public #allery (ords to t"e e$$ect t"at $i%e ot"er #irls "ad been
attacked by t"e de$endant& In suc" instances t"e inte#rity o$ t"e jury members is not in
issue, but t"e 'ud#e must still be satis$ied t"at t"e jury are able to put suc" in$ormation
out o$ t"eir minds and t"at t"e $airAminded obser%er could trust t"e jury's ob'ecti%ity&
Alt"ou#" t"e 'ud#e directed t"e jury to i#nore ("at (as s"outed $rom t"e #allery, "e
did not in-uire into ("at t"ey "ad actually "eard& As suc" "is direction (as rat"er too
#eneral and $ailed to #i%e due attention to comments ("ic" (ere potentially "i#"ly
pre'udicial& T"e earlier case o$ R % $oc%erty104 stated t"at in suc" circumstances t"e
'ud#e s"ould approac" *J. Crim. L. 60 t"e issue on t"e basis o$ t"e most pre'udicial
meanin# t"at could reasonably be placed on t"e comments& It is clear t"at t"e (ron#
course o$ action is to try to limit t"e impact o$ in$ormation #arnered inad%ertently by
simply i#norin# it&
R % 2utto!,102R % 3ilso!103 and R % T%om/so!10: all concern t"e problems t"at can
arise ("en a de$endant*s name appears more t"an once on a court list suc" t"at an
astute obser%er mi#"t spot t"at "e or s"e $aced $urt"er or di$$erent criminal c"ar#es& In
2utto!, a note pinned to t"e door o$ t"e court made it clear t"at $urt"er trials (ere
pendin#& A 'uror (as obser%ed readin# t"e notice& A$ter t"e jury "ad retired t"e 'ud#e
(as told about t"is& 4e re$used to "a%e t"em back and #i%e some direction about
i#norin# ("at t"ey "ad read& T"is (as "eld to be (ron#& Tailored directions s"ould "a%e
been #i%en to t"e e$$ect t"at t"e 'urors s"ould put t"is kno(led#e out o$ t"eir minds as
bein# irrele%ant to t"eir deliberations& In 3ilso!, 'urors may "a%e spotted t"at t"e
de$endant*s name (as on a court list $or mention later in t"e (eek& T"e 'ud#e did not
con$ront t"e jury (it" t"e problem, not least because de$ence counsel did not (ant "im
to& T"e con%iction (as up"eld as t"e jury properly already kne( a #reat deal about t"e
de$endant*s criminal "istory& Ne%ert"eless, t"e Court o$ Appeal (as clear t"at it (ould
"a%e been muc" more pre$erable (ere t"e issue to "a%e been addressed "ead on&
4u#"es /J added t"at5
T"e better course (ould "a%e been to say eit"er t"at t"ey s"ould pay no attention to
somet"in# ("ic" mi#"t (ell "a%e an e0planation in t"e tec"nolo#y, or t"at ("et"er "e
$aced anot"er c"ar#e or not (as entirely irrele%ant to t"e -uestion ("ic" t"ey "ad
conscientiously s(orn to try, namely ("et"er "e "ad done ("at (as alle#ed in t"is
case&10;
T"e 6irrele%ant8 e0planation is better in t"is case and an appeal to tec"nolo#ical problems
s"ould only be made i$ actually borne out& In t"e $inal analysis, ("ere t"e 'ud#e "as
(ei#"ed and articulated t"e issues and #i%en a stron# and appropriate direction, t"e
Court o$ Appeal 6s"ould not and (ill not inter$ere (it" decisions made by a trial 'ud#e
about t"e proper conduct o$ t"e case unless satis$ied t"at t"ey are (ron#8&101
T"e situation mi#"t arise ("ere a 'uror accesses t"e internet $or entirely proper
purposes, but is inad%ertently e0posed to pre'udicial material& T"e /a( Commission is
considerin# a proposal to permit prosecution and de$ence la(yers to apply $or temporary
remo%al orders aimed at t"ose (it" 6su$$icient control8 o$ t"e pre'udicial material&110
)uc" a proposal "as implications $or $ree speec" and it is su##ested t"at emp"asis
s"ould be placed on jury mana#ement rat"er t"an curtailin# speec"&111 T"is is anot"er
area ("ere 'urors must be encoura#ed to report suc" issues to t"e court so t"at t"e
'ud#e mi#"t respond appropriately to neutralise t"e problem&
Page14
*J. Crim. L. 61 )issension *it!in t!e +#r(
Dissension (it"in t"e jury room is, to a de#ree, ine%itable& 4o(e%er, ("ere t"is
escalates to t"e point o$ 'urors reportin# conduct to t"e 'ud#e, t"en t"is must be dealt
(it" openly and s(i$tly& In R % 4rgles,112 t"ere (as $riction amon#st t"e jury and t(o
'urors made a complaint to t"e 'ud#e& In t"e absence o$ t"e ot"ers, t"e 'ud#e asked
t"em ("et"er t"ey still $elt able to continue i$ t"e remainin# 'urors (ere directed to #i%e
true %erdicts accordin# to t"e e%idence& T"ey said t"at t"ey could& T"is approac" (as
"eld to be (ron#& As discussed earlier, it is entirely appropriate to seek to deal (it"
6e0ternal8 issues a$$ectin# an indi%idual 'uror by speakin# to t"at 'uror alone& T"is may
"a%e t"e e$$ect o$ limitin# contamination& 4o(e%er, ("ere t"e problem is internal to t"e
jury t"eir capacity to carry out t"eir $unction as a collecti%e body is at risk&119 It is
important t"at t"e ot"er 'urors are a(are o$ t"e potential problem and can react
accordin#ly& T"is mi#"t "a%e t"e e$$ect o$ concentratin# minds more closely on t"e task
at "and or e%en brin#in# problems out& Ht"er 'urors mi#"t "a%e $elt t"e same $riction in
t"e jury room, but "ad been reluctant to say suc"& ."at is key, "o(e%er, is not t"at
t"e trial is placed back on track as speedily as possible, but t"at bias and pressure are
not seen to be operati%e&
T"e approac" adopted by t"e trial 'ud#e in R % Momodou114 (as endorsed by t"e Court
o$ Appeal& A$ter a $ourAmont" trial t"e 'urors (ere in t"eir second day o$ retirement& Hne
(rote a letter to t"e 'ud#e sayin# t"at t(o o$ "er collea#ues 6are bein# discriminatory
and pre'udiced8 and 6are not 'ud#in# t"e case based upon t"e e%idence8& T"e 'ud#e did
not disc"ar#e t"em strai#"t a(ay, but "ad t"em into court and e0pressed "is concern
about t"e contents o$ t"e letter& 4e pro%ided eac" member o$ t"e jury (it" an edited
copy o$ t"e letter and t"en told t"em to retire, consider it and decide ("et"er t"ey $elt
able to continue or ("et"er t"eir collecti%e ability to #i%e an impartial %erdict "ad been
compromised& 4e (ould only accept a response in #eneral terms and not indi%idual
responses& Counsel $or t"e de$endant "ad su##ested t"at t"e 'ud#e "ad $ailed to
in%esti#ate ade-uately t"e alle#ations made by t"e indi%idual 'uror& 4o(e%er, t"e Court
o$ Appeal t"ou#"t it unnecessary in t"is case t"ou#", s"ould it "a%e been necessary, it
s"ould take place in t"e presence o$ t"e de$endant& T"is approac" succeeded in ensurin#
t"at jury deliberations (ere not touc"ed upon; t"at percei%ed pre'udice could be
neutralised; and t"at t"e indi%idual complainant 'uror (as not e0posed& >y pro%idin# an
edited copy o$ t"e letter t"e 'urors (ere not simply reminded o$ t"eir task but (ere able
to see "o( t"e complaint came about and ("et"er, as a result, t"ey could e$$ecti%ely put
t"e potential pre'udice aside&112
R % 4K5113 indicates t"at t"e speci$ic content o$ t"e 'uror*s note may determine t"e
approac"& T"e trial 'ud#e c"ose to deal (it" a note indicatin# *J. Crim. L. 62 concerns
about a 'uror*s comments about et"nicity by addressin# t"e jury as ("ole& Hn appeal,
4ooper /J commented5
.e "a%e concerns about t"e 'uror*s note bein# disclosed to t"e ("ole jury (it"out any
opportunity to consider t"e matter (it" t"e indi%idual 'uror& I$, as (as done in t"is case,
'urors are told to brin# matters to t"e attention o$ t"e 'ud#e i$ t"ey "a%e concerns, t"en
it seems, to say t"e least, concernin# to read t"is kind o$ note to t"e ("ole jury
(it"out prior discussion (it" t"e (riter o$ t"e note&11:
In contrast to Momodou t"e note re$erred to t"e comments o$ one particular 'uror and as
Page1"
suc" mi#"t "a%e re-uired $urt"er elaboration in order t"at t"e 'ud#e could ascertain t"e
de#ree o$ t"e problem& 4o(e%er, in takin# t"is course o$ action, t"e 'ud#e must be
especially care$ul t"at t"e jury's deliberations are not touc"ed upon&11; Hne rele%ant
consideration mi#"t be t"at a 'uror may "a%e reported concerns con$identially and
simply to address t"e jury as a ("ole $ollo(in# t"e note it mi#"t be readily apparent to
t"e ot"er 'urors ("o t"e complainant (as, potentially impedin# t"eir collecti%e task& I$
'urors are to be encoura#ed to report percei%ed problems, t"en t"ey must be made to
$eel com$ortable in doin# so& An aspect o$ t"e procedure adopted in t"is case t"at (as
certainly problematic (as t"at t"e 'ud#e c"ose not to s"are t"e 'uror*s $irst note (it"
counsel immediately, t"us denyin# t"em t"e opportunity to make %aluable
representations as to "o( to pro#ress t"e case&
."ere t"ere is e%idence o$ dissension in t"e jury room an ob%ious solution is to dismiss
t"e jury& 4o(e%er, as stated earlier, it s"ould not be possible $or a trial to be so easily
derailed& It is imperati%e, t"ere$ore, $or t"e 'ud#e to take a "olistic %ie( o$ t"e
circumstances& T"e 'uror ("o "as reported t"e discord may "a%e sinister reasons $or
doin# so, but e%en ("en t"at is not t"e case, t"ere is t"e possibility t"at t"e 'uror may
be o%erAsensiti%e or "as misread ("at is seen by ot"ers as robust debate& T"e 'ud#e
s"ould consider t"e 'uror*s note in t"e li#"t o$ (ider $actors5 "as any ot"er 'uror reported
concerns; "as t"e jury acted in accordance (it" t"e directions t"us $ar; are t"e
-uestions t"ey are askin# ?i$ any@ su##esti%e o$ any biasB I$ t"ere are no $actors
supportin# t"e indi%idual 'uror*s report, t"en it may be t"at a $urt"er stern (arnin# to
t"e jury, (it" a reminder to report $urt"er impropriety, may (ell su$$ice to ensure t"at
t"e jury can carry out t"eir task (it"out actual or apparent bias& T"e decision bet(een
$urt"er (arnin#s and disc"ar#e o$ t"e jury is di$$icult and, necessarily, dependent upon
t"e indi%idual $acts&111 4o(e%er, ("et"er t"e members o$ t"e jury can continue to be
trusted or ("et"er t"eir inte#rity "as been irredeemably lost does "a%e conse-uences
beyond t"e de$endant& T"e public must also "a%e $ait" in t"e decision& Action s"ould be
s(i$t t"ou#" not (it"out a pause $or t"ou#"t120 to take account o$ all surroundin#
$actors& +urt"er, it is recommended t"at t"e 'ud#e discuss t"e (ay $or(ard *J. Crim. L.
63 (it" counsel to ensure t"at all rele%ant issues "a%e been taken into account&
Conclusion
+or jury deliberations to be made public or $or t"e jury to "a%e to #i%e reasons $or t"eir
%erdict (ould $undamentally c"an#e t"e nature o$ t"eir role& Indeed, eit"er mi#"t
undermine t"e con$idence o$ t"e public ("ic" juries "a%e in abundance& +urt"er, suc"
c"an#es need not be an essential part o$ a $air ad'udication process& Instead, as t"e
<Ct4R reco#nised, con$idential jury deliberations (it"out reasons to 'usti$y t"e %erdict
can be compatible (it" Article 3 pro%ided t"at t"ere is a procedural $rame(ork in place
t"at pro%ides su$$icient #uarantees as to, i!ter alia, t"e jury's impartiality& )uc" a
$rame(ork can promote accuracy and also en"ance ?or at least maintain@ public
con$idence, a key $acet o$ t"e criminal 'ustice process& T"e oat" and t"e directions
pro%ided by t"e 'ud#e to t"e jury are one aspect o$ t"is $rame(ork, and bot" are under
consideration by t"e /a( Commission (it" a %ie( to #reater speci$icity in t"eir scope
and, more broadly, better education as to t"e role o$ t"e jury& A $urt"er aspect o$ t"e
$rame(ork is t"e Cro(n Court !rotocol on Jury Irre#ularity and t"e manner in ("ic"
trial courts deal (it" alle#ations o$ impropriety durin# t"e trial, ("ic" in%ol%e endin# t"e
Page1'
trial ("ere impartiality "as been compromised, or 6curin#8 or ne#atin# t"e partiality
("ere t"is is possible& Dealin# (it" jury impropriety is necessarily $actAspeci$ic&
Ne%ert"eless, in order to maintain bot" actual and apparent impartiality it "as been
illustrated t"at certain key $eatures s"ould in$orm t"e court*s response& It is important
t"at t"e 'ud#e acts (it"out delay and $ully in%esti#ates any alle#ations suc" t"at "e or
s"e can be sure t"at t"ey "a%e #one to t"e root o$ t"e issue& It is ad%isable t"at t"e
'ud#e consults (it" counsel ("o s"ould be #i%en t"e opportunity to make
representations& )o $ar as possible t"e ("ole jury s"ould be kept in$ormed as to ("at
"as "appened unless a speci$ic 'uror is to be disc"ar#ed in relation to an 6e0ternal8 issue
in ("ic" case it may be $easible to limit t"e e0tent o$ t"e problem& Certainly, askin# a
'uror ("o is not to be disc"ar#ed t"en and t"ere to keep in$ormation $rom $ello( 'urors
is inappropriate& /ike(ise, t"e court s"ould e0ercise caution ("en -uestionin# indi%idual
'urors about complaints in relation to collea#ues as it carries clear risks o$ impermissible
in-uiry into jury deliberations& Jurors s"ould not be asked to #i%e immediate or
indi%idual responses in open court, but s"ould "a%e t"e opportunity o$ pri%ate re$lection&
I$ 'urors are disc"ar#ed, it is also %ital t"at t"ey are (arned not to discuss t"e
circumstances (it" anyone& Applied to t"e indi%idual $acts o$ a case t"ese $eatures "elp
not only to ensure t"at t"e de$endant recei%es a $air trial, but, crucially, t"at t"e public
can continue to trust t"e inte#rity o$ t"e jury&
!ostA%erdict alle#ations o$ bias121 or ot"er misconduct raise di$$erent -uestions and are
outside t"e scope o$ t"is article t"ou#" it is note(ort"y *J. Crim. L. 64 t"at e%en in
su##estin# t"e possibility o$ 6e0ceptional circumstances8 to allo( postA%erdict alle#ations
to be in%esti#ated, t"e /a( Commission states t"at 6clearly it is important t"at t"e
rationale $or section ; EContempt o$ Court Act 11;1F is not undermined8&122 T"ou#" t"e
role o$ t"e jury, and more speci$ically jury pri%acy, is under considerable strain it does
not as yet appear t"at t"e pressure $or $undamental c"an#e is o%erbearin#& T"is can only
remain t"e case, "o(e%er, ("ilst 'udicial mana#ement o$ juries and conse-uent
misconduct or impropriety $osters public trust and con$idence& Juries are not in$allible,
but do still play a %aluable role (it"in t"e criminal 'ustice system t"at is (ort"y o$
protection&
J& Crim& /& 2014, :;?1@, 49A34
1&
6Jicky !ryce jury disc"ar#ed in 4u"ne speedin# points case8, 20 +ebruary 2019, a%ailable at
www*bbc*co*u-6!ews6u-721"1'4,3, accessed 2 December 2019&
2& Justice 4ump"reys, 6Do .e Need a Jury8 E1123F Crim /R 42:, -uoted in !& T"ornton, 6Trial by Jury5 20
Kears o$ C"an#e8 E2004F Crim /R 111&
9& !& Darbys"ire, 6T"e /amp T"at )"o(s T"at +reedom /i%es5 Is It .ort" t"e CandleB8 E1111F Crim /R :40
at :41&
4& Auld /J, A Re+iew o& t%e 8rimi!al 8ourts o& #!gla!d a!d 3ales ?/ondon, )eptember 2001@ c"& 2&
2& )ee, e&#&, 2a!i& % (!ited Ki!gdom E2012F Crim /R 212; R % Abdroi-o+ E200:F CL4/ 9:, E200:F 1 ./R
23:1; R % 9 E2011F <.CA Crim 32, E2011F 1 Cr App R 2:&
3& E2004F CL4/ 2, E2004F 1 AC 111;&
:& +or e0ample, see t"e ma'or decisions in R % Momodou E2002F <.CA Crim 1::, E2002F 2 All <R 2:1; R %
Kara-aya E2002F <.CA Crim 943, E2002F 2 Cr App R 2; Attor!ey7:e!eral % )cotc%er E2002F CL4/ 93,
E2002F 1 ./R 1;3:&
Page1,
;& Department $or Constitutional A$$airs, J#r( Researc% a!d ;m/ro/riety< A 8o!sultatio! Pa/er to Assess
4/tio!s &or Allowi!g Researc% i!to J#r( $eliberatio!s a!d to 8o!sider ;!+estigatio!s i!to Alleged =uror
;m/ro/riety, C! 04M02 ?2002@&
1& Taxquet % Belgium ?App& No& 123M02, 13 No%ember 2010@&
10& /a( Commission, 8o!tem/t o& 8ourt< A 8o!sultatio! Pa/er, /a( Com& Consultation !aper No& 201
?2012@ especially c"& 4&
11& C& T"omas, 6A%oidin# t"e !er$ect )torm o$ Juror Contempt8 E2019F Crim /R 4;9&
12& J& 4oran, J#ries i! t%e Twe!ty >irst 8e!tury ?+ederation !ress5 Annandale N)., 2019@&
19& J& Roberts and & 4ou#", Public 4/i!io! a!d t%e J#r(< A! ;!ter!atio!al 9iterature Re+iew, inistry o$
Justice Researc" )eries 1M01 ?2001@& )ee also t"e sur%eys discussed in C& T"omas, 6<0posin# t"e yt"s
o$ Jury )er%ice8 E200;F Crim /R 412 at 413A:&
14& Roberts and 4ou#", abo%e n& 19 at 225 6t"e #eneral $indin# is t"at most people are %ery con$ident t"at
juries are representati%e o$ t"e community8&
12& Roberts and 4ou#", abo%e n& 19, see Table 9&1, 22& )ee also R& J& acCoun and T& R& Tyler, 6T"e >asis o$
Citi=ens !erceptions o$ t"e Criminal Jury5 !rocedural +airness, Accuracy and <$$iciency8 ?11;;@ 12 9aw
a!d 2uma! Be%a+iour 999 at 99;, Table 2&
13& acCoun and Tyler, abo%e n& 12 at 992&
1:& N& )& arder, 6An Introduction to Comparati%e Jury )ystems8 ?2011@ ;3 C"iALent / Re% 429&
1;& >ar Council, ?iews o! Trial by J#r(< T%e Britis% Public Ta-es a )ta!d ?2002@, -uoted in Roberts and
4ou#", abo%e n& 19 at 22&
11& & Redmayne, 6T"eorisin# Jury Re$orm8 in A& Du$$, /& +armer, )& ars"all and J& Tadros ?eds@, T%e Trial
o! Trial< ?olume Two< =udgme!t a!d 8alli!g to Accou!t ?4art !ublis"in#5 H0$ord, 2003@ c"& 3&
20& acCoun and Tyler, abo%e n& 12 at 94:&
21& Ibid& at 920&
22& Criminal Justice Act 2009, s& 44; R % Twomey E2011F <.CA Crim ;, E2011F 1 Cr App R 21&
29& /& /& +uller, 6T"e +orms and /imits o$ Ad'udication8 ?11:;@ 12 4ar% / Re% 939&
24& Ibid& at 933&
22& Ibid& at 93:&
23& Ibid& at 932&
2:& +urt"er on jury accountability, see J& D& Jackson, 6akin# Juries Accountable8 ?2002@ 20 Am J o$ Comp
/ 4::& )ee also Taxquet % Belgium ?App& No& 123M02, 13 No%ember 2010@; !& Roberts, 6Does Article 3 o$
t"e <uropean Con%ention on 4uman Ri#"ts Re-uire Reasoned Jerdicts in Criminal Trials8 ?2011@ 11 4R/R
219&
2;& c4u#" J, 6Jurors* Deliberations, Jury )ecrecy, !ublic !olicy and t"e /a( o$ Contempt8 in & +indlay and
!& Du$$ ?eds@, T%e J#r( (!der Attac- ?>utter(ort"s5 /ondon, 11;;@ :1&
21& E2004F CL4/ 2, E2004F 1 AC 111; at E4:F& +or a criti-ue, see /& cGo(an, 6Trial by Jury5 )till a /amp in
t"e DarkB8 ?2002@ 31 JC/ 21;&
90& & Dander, J#r( Researc% a!d ;m/ro/riety< A Res/o!se to t%e $e/artme!t o& 8o!stitutio!al A&&airs@
8o!sultatio! Pa/er A8P 1461"B ?2002@ at para& 35 a%ailable at
%tt/<66www*lse*ac*u-6collectio!s6law6sta&&C/ublicatio!sC&ullCtext6za!der6J#r(CResearc%D!dEm/ro/riety*
/d&, accessed 2 December 2019&
91& )ee, e&#&, R& /& /ippke, 6T"e Case $or Reasoned Criminal Trial Jerdicts8 ?2001@ 22 Can J / N Juris 919&
Page1.
92& Taxquet % Belgium ?App& No& 123M02, 13 No%ember 2010@&
99& Ibid& at para& 10&
94& A& A& )& Duckerman, 6/a(, +act or JusticeB8 ?11;3@ 33 >C/R 4;: at 413&
92& Pullar % (!ited Ki!gdom ?1113@ 22 <4RR 911 at para& 90&
93& E2001F 1 ./R :00&
9:& A& A& )& Duckerman, T"e !rinciples o$ Criminal <%idence ?H0$ord Cni%ersity !ress5 H0$ord, 11;1@ 94&
9;& +uller, abo%e n& 29 at 9;2A3&
91& Duckerman, abo%e n& 94 at 413&
40& E1122F 2 L> 119 at 11:&
41& E2004F CL4/ 2, E2004F 1 AC 111;&
42& Ibid& at E2:F&
49& Ibid& at E121F&
44& Ibid& at E113F&
42& )ee also Attor!ey7:e!eral % )cotc%er E2002F CL4/ 93, E2002F 1 ./R 1;3: at E1:F, /er /ord Rod#er&
43& R % Mirza E2004F CL4/ 2, E2004F 1 AC 111; at E113F&
4:& Ibid& at E4F&
4;& 4;9 C) 10: ?11;:@&
41& & Dora, 6T"e Real )ocial Net(ork5 4o( Jurors8 Cse o$ )ocial edia and )mart !"ones A$$ect t"e
De$endant*s )i0t" Amendment Ri#"ts* ?2012@ C Ill / Re% 2::& )ee also L& D& Clardy, 6Judicial Con$usion
and Inconsistency in 4andlin# Juror isconduct5 A Ne( !roposal8 ?2001@ 1: .m and ary >ill Rts J ;12;
R& !& acLen=ie and C& C& >romber#, 6Jury isconduct5 ."at 4appens >e"ind Closed Doors8 ?2011@ 32
Ala / Re% 329&
20& T"ere is t"e possibility to c"allen#e a 'uror $or cause t"ou#" it "as been claimed t"at t"is is o$ little
%alue in terms o$ ensurin# impartiality5 !& Darbys"ire, A& au#"an and A& )te(art, 3%at 8a! t%e #!glis%
9egal )ystem 9ear! &rom J#r( Researc% Publis%ed (/ to 2111F, Hccasional !aper )eries 41, Lin#ston
/a( )c"ool ?2002@ 12&
21& 4is 4onour Jud#e R& Denyer, 8ase Ma!ageme!t i! 8rimi!al Trials, 2nd edn ?4art !ublis"in#5 H0$ord,
2012@ c"& 21&
22& 8rimi!al Practice $irectio!s E2019F <.CA Crim 1391 at E91<F&1& +or comment, see C& urdoc", 6T"e
Hat" and t"e Internet8 ?2012@ 1:3 8rimi!al 9aw a!d =ustice 3ee-ly 141&
29& Guidance on "o( t"e Cro(n Court s"ould respond to jury irre#ularities can be $ound in J#r(
;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt< A Protocol ;ssued by t%e Preside!t o& t%e Guee!@s Be!c% $i+isio!,
a%ailable at
%tt/<66www*Hudiciary*go+*u-6Resources6=846$ocume!ts6Protocols6+#r(IirregularitiesI/rotocol*/d&,
accessed 2 December 2019& Judicial instructions to t"e jury can be $ound in t"e Cro(n Court >enc"
>ook $irecti!g t%e J#r( ?2010@& T"e 'urors are also pro%ided (it" a booklet $rom 4 Courts and
Tribunals )er%ice, Jour :uide to J#r( )er+ice ?2011@&
24& R % Blac-well, >arley a!d Adams E1113F Crim /R 42;; 8rimi!al Practice $irectio!s E2019F <.CA Crim
1391 at E91&9FAE91&11F&
22& R % Momodou E2002F <.CA Crim 1:: at E14F&
23& Juries Act 11:4, s& 13&
2:& R % 2ambery E11::F O> 124& )ee also J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29 at para& 10&
Page10
2;& R % Put!am E1111F 19 Cr App R 2;1 at 2;3&
21& R % :oug% E1119F 1: Cr App R 1;; at 111&
30& J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29&
31& +or e0ample, in Australia t"e concern surroundin# 'uror misconduct "as seen t"e introduction o$
le#islation criminalisin# certain be"a%iours& )ee Ne( )out" .ales Jury Act 11::, s& 3;c& T"e Courts and
Ht"er /e#islation +urt"er Amendment Act 2019 ?N).@ (ill re#ulate t"e use o$ personal di#ital de%ices
durin# a trial& In Oueensland t"e rele%ant statute is t"e Jury Act 1112 ?Old@ ss 31AA:0; and in Jictoria,
t"e Juries Act 2000 ?Jic@, s& :;A& Cases o$ particular interest include5 R % K E2009F N).CCA 403; R %
Bilal )-a& E2004F N).CCA 9:; $u/as % T%e Guee! ?2010@ 241 C/R 29:; Boyd % T%e )tate o& 3ester!
Australia E2012F .A)C 9;;& +or a discussion o$ t"e rele%ant concerns and le#islati%e response, see R&
Jo"ns, Trial by J#r(< Rece!t $e+elo/me!ts, N). !arliamentary /ibrary Researc" )er%ice, >rie$in# !aper
4M02 ?2002@& )ee also /& Trimboli, =uror (!dersta!di!g o& =udicial ;!structio!s i! 8rimi!al Trials, 8rime
a!d =ustice, >ulletin No& 111 ?N). >ureau o$ Crime )tatistics Researc"5 200;@; J& Jo"nston, !& Ley=er,
G& 4olland, & !earson, )& Rodrick and A& .allace, J#ries a!d )ocial Media< A Re/ort &or t%e ?ictoria!
$e/artme!t o& =ustice ?2019@, a%ailable at
%tt/<66www*sclH*go+*au6agdbase+,wr6sclH6docume!ts6/d&6HuriesD!dCsocialCmediaC7C&i!al*/d&, accessed
2 December 2019; !& /o(e, 6C"allen#es $or t"e Jury )ystem and a +air Trial in t"e T(entyA+irst
Century8 E2011F JCC/ 1:2; J& 4oran, J#ries i! t%e 21st 8e!tury ?+ederation !ress5 Annandale N).,
2019@& In Ne( Dealand t"e issue is also 6li%e8AAsee A& T& 4& )mit", Re&ormi!g t%e Kew 5eala!d 9aw o&
8o!tem/t o& 8ourt, $iscussio! Pa/er ?2011@ para& 2&29, a%ailable at
%tt/<66www*crow!law*go+t*!z6u/loads6co!tem/tIo&Icourt*/d&, accessed 2 December 2019; R % B
E200;F NDCA 190 at E:;F& )ee also .& Koun#, N& Cameron and K& Tinsley, 9aw J#ries i! 8rimi!al Trials,
Part Two< A )ummary o& t%e Researc% >i!di!gs, /a( Commission o$ Ne( Dealand !reliminary !aper
9:?2@ ?1111@, discussin# 'urors* reliance on outside materials be$ore mass internet use& +or a summary
o$ t"e issues in t"e C)A, see C& & orrison, 6 Jury 2&08 ?2011@ 32 4astin#s /J 12:1; R& !& acken=ie III
and C& C& >romber# Jnr, 6 Jury isconduct5 ."at 4appens >e"ind Closed Doors8 ?2011@ 32 Ala / Re%
329; T& 4o$$meister, 6In%esti#atin# Jurors in t"e Di#ital A#e5 Hne Click at a Time8 ?2012@ 30 C Lan / Re%
311; A& J& )t <%e and & A& Duckerman, 6<nsurin# and Impartial Jury in t"e Age o& )ocial MediaL
A2112B 11 $u-e 9 M Tec% Re+ 1* )ee also 8ommo! wealt% + .erner ;1 ass App Ct 3;1 ?2012@&
32& Jo"nston, Ley=er et al*, abo%e n& 31 at para& 9&1&
39& R % Kara-aya E2002F 2 Cr App R 2; R % Mars%all E200:F <.CA Crim 92; Judicial Colle#e, 8row! 8ourt
Be!c% Boo-< >irst )u//leme!t ?2011@; Jud#e Tonkin# and Jud#e .ait, 8row! 8ourt Be!c% Boo-
8om/a!io! ?2011@&
34& J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29 at para& ;&
32& E200;F <.CA Crim 2921&
33& E2010F <.CA Crim 2922&
3:& Ibid& at E2;F&
3;& T"is issue is addressed similarly in Australia, see Be!bri-a % R ?2010@ 24: +/R 1&
31& E2010F <.CA Crim 1329&
:0& Judicial Colle#e, abo%e n& 39 at ;&
:1& 4oran, abo%e n& 31 at c"& 2& +or $urt"er in$ormation on "o( 'urors use t"e internet durin# a trial, see C&
T"omas, 6A%oidin# t"e !er$ect )torm o$ Juror Contempt8 E2019F Crim /R 4;9&
:2& R& !attenden, 6In%esti#atin# Jury Irre#ularities5 Cnited Lin#dom ?<n#land and .ales@8 ?2010@ 14 <N!
932 at 934&
:9& )ee L& Crosby, 6Controllin# De%lin*s Jury5 ."at t"e Jury T"inks and ."at t"e Jury )ees Hnline8
E2012F Crim /R 12&
Page21
:4& T"is mi#"t also aid compre"ension& T"e su##estion t"at 'urors "a%e di$$iculty compre"endin# some le#al
directions is certainly %ery real& )ee C& T"omas, Are J#ries >airF, inistry o$ Justice Researc" )eries
1M10 ?2010@ 93; J& /& Ritter, 6Kour /ips Are o%in# >ut t"e .ords Aren*t Clear5 Dissectin# t"e
!resumption t"at Jurors Cnderstand Instructions8 ?2004@ 31 o / Re% 139; J& Tur#eon and <& A& +rancis,
6Impro%in# !ennsyl%ania*s Justice )ystem t"rou#" Jury Inno%ations8 ?2001@ 1; .idener /J 411;
Darbys"ire, abo%e n& 9&
:2& Darbys"ire et al*, abo%e n& 20 at 99&
:3& /a( Commission, 8o!tem/t o& 8ourt A1B< =uror Misco!duct a!d ;!ter!et Publicatio!s, /a( Com& No& 940,
4C ;30 ?2019@ para& 9&:;&
::& )ee also Dora, abo%e n& 41, ("o ar#ues t"at t"e current structure o$ 'udicial (arnin#s and suc"like are
pro%in# insu$$icient to #uarantee impartiality and t"e criminal nature o$ 'urors be"a%iour in accessin#
e0ternal materials s"ould be more clearly e0plained $ollo(ed by prosecutions&
:;& Darbys"ire et al*, abo%e n& 20 at !art C&
:1& T"omas, abo%e n& :4 at 41&
;0& An e0ample o$ 'uror reluctance to in$orm can be seen in t"e Ne( )out" .ales case o$ R % 3ood E200;F
N).CCA 29& +urt"er, see 4oran, abo%e n& 31 at c"& 2&
;1& /a( Commission, abo%e n& 10 at para 4&11&
;2& Criminal Justice Act 2009, s& 44&
;9& To date t"ere "as only been one suc" case5 R % Twomey E2011F <.CA Crim ;, E2011F 1 Cr App R 21&
;4& E1113F 1 Cr App R 231 at 2:1&
;2& In accordance (it" J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29 at para& ;&
;3& Ibid&
;:& R % Ramza! a!d >arooq E1112F Crim /R 131&
;;& E2001F <.CA Crim 4:1&
;1& Ibid& at E22F&
10& E2001 <.CA Crim 2;2;&
11& Ibid& at E24F&
12& Ibid& at E91F&
19& In R % )/e!cer E11;:F AC 12;, /ord 4ails"am (as clear t"at t"e paramount $actor "ad to be t"e
interests o$ 'ustice&
14& E2001F <.CA Crim 142:&
12& J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29 at para& 10?i@&
13& E2011F <.CA Crim 41&
1:& E111;F Crim /R 194&
1;& R % Pa!!iyis E1111F Crim /R ;4&
11& E111:F Crim /R ;1;&
100& E1112F 2 Cr App R 322&
101& E2011F <.CA Crim 2321&
102& Ibid& at E20F&
Page21
109& E1111F Crim /R :1:&
104& ?1111@ 1 Cr App R 2:4; see also R % 9awso! E2002F <.CA Crim ;4, E200:F 1 Cr App R 20&
102& E1110F Crim /R ;:2&
103& E200;F <.CA Crim 194, E200;F 2 Cr App R 9&
10:& E2010F <.CA Crim 1329, E2011F 1 ./R 200&
10;& R % 3ilso! E200;F <.CA Crim 194, E200;F 2 Cr App R 9 at E20F&
101& R % Azam E2003F <.CA Crim 131 at E2:F; E2003F Crim /R ::3&
110& /a( Commission, abo%e n& 10 at para& 9&;2&
111& I& Cram and N& Taylor, 6T"e /a( Commission*s Contempt !roposals5 Gettin# t"e >alance Ri#"tB8 E2019F
Crim /R 432&
112& ?1114@ 1; Cr App R 1;2 at p& 110&
119& J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! Court, abo%e n& 29 at para& 10?ii@&
114& E2002F <.CA Crim 1::, E2002F 2 Cr App R 3&
112& T"e e$$ect o$ t"e speci$ic ?in@action taken at t"e trial sta#e can be seen in t"e contrastin# cases o$
:regory % (!ited Ki!gdom ?111;@ 22 <4RR 2: and )a!der % (!ited Ki!gdom ?2000@ 99 <4RR 44&
113& E2010F <.CA Crim 22:2&
11:& Abo%e n& 113 at E22F&
11;& J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29 at para& ;&
111& +or a recent e0ample, see =8, ==8, P8 a!d T8 % R E2019F <.CA Crim 93;&
120& R % 2eward E2012F <.CA Crim ;10 t"e Court o$ Appeal reiterated t"at t"e recommended course be t"at
t"e courts takes its time to ensure t"e most appropriate course o$ action& )ee also J#r( ;rregularities i!
t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29 at para& 1&
121& +urt"er, see J#r( ;rregularities i! t%e 8row! 8ourt, abo%e n& 29 at paras 13A24; G& Daly and R&
!attenden, 6Racial >ias and t"e <n#lis" Criminal Trial Jury8 ?2002@ 34 C/J 3:;; !& R& +er#uson, 6T"e
Criminal Jury in <n#land and )cotland5 T"e Con$identiality !rinciple and t"e In%esti#ation o$
Impropriety8 ?2003@ 10 <N! 1;0; N& 4aralambous, 6In%esti#atin# Impropriety in Jury Deliberations5 A
Recipe $or DisasterB8 ?2004@ 3; JC/ 411; J& /& .est, 612 Racist en5 !ostAJerdict <%idence o$ Juror >ias8
?2011@ 2: 2ar+ard =our!al Racial a!d #t%!ic =ustice 132; A& C& 4elman, 6Racism, Juries and Justice5
Addressin# !ostAJerdict Juror Testimony o$ Racial !re'udice Durin# Deliberations8 ?2010@ 32 e / Re%
92:; /& Goldman, 6!ostAJerdict C"allen#es to Racial Comments ade Durin# Juror Deliberations8 ?2010@
31 )yracuse / Re% 1&
122& /a( Commission, abo%e n& 10 at para& 4&30&
P 2014 Jat"ek !ublis"in#