Citation: Regina v JP (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1678
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 October 2013
Judge(s): Hall J
Background
During a criminal trial, the jury foreperson sent a note to the trial judge advising that one juror had conducted legal research via an internet search. This prompted the trial judge to take immediate steps under the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) to investigate the matter.
Hall J conducted separate examinations of the foreperson and the juror in question, each brought individually into the courtroom by the Sheriff's officer. The substance of those examinations is set out in the companion decision, R v JP (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1679.
Both the Crown and defence counsel agreed that the juror had to be discharged. The judge indicated on the day that he would publish his reasons later.
Legal Issues
- Whether the juror's internet legal research constituted "misconduct" within the meaning of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
- Whether mandatory discharge of the juror under s 53A of the Act was required
- What procedure should be followed when suspected juror misconduct is reported mid-trial
Decision
Hall J found that the juror's internet research into the law constituted misconduct under s 53A(2) of the Jury Act 1977, which defines misconduct to include conduct that constitutes an offence under the Act. Conducting legal research online was a breach of both the trial directions given at the outset and of ss 68C(1) and 68C(4) of the Act.
His Honour agreed with and adopted the reasoning of Adamson J in R v Sio (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1414 on this point. Because the misconduct finding engaged s 53A, discharge was mandatory rather than discretionary.
Following the examination, the juror was immediately separated from the remaining jurors, and her belongings were retrieved from the jury room on her behalf by the Sheriff's officer. The remaining eleven jurors were returned to court and directed in accordance with the Criminal Bench Book at [1-515] regarding the discharge.
Orders Made
- The juror was discharged from the jury pursuant to s 53A of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW).
Key Takeaways
- Under s 53A of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), discharge of a juror is mandatory once misconduct is established; there is no residual discretion to retain the juror.
- Internet legal research by a juror constitutes "misconduct" within the meaning of s 53A(2), as it breaches both ss 68C(1) and 68C(4) of the Act and contravenes standard trial directions.
- The Supreme Court adopted the approach of Adamson J in R v Sio (No 3), reinforcing consistency in how this category of juror misconduct is assessed.
- Procedurally, the court examined the foreperson and the offending juror separately, each brought individually to the courtroom by the Sheriff's officer, before the discharge order was made.
- A trial may lawfully continue with eleven jurors after a discharge of this kind, with the remaining jury being directed appropriately in accordance with the Criminal Bench Book.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53A, 53B, 53C, 55DA, 68C(1), 68C(4)
Cases
- R v JP (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1679
- R v Sio (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1414