The use of the internet has increased over the recent decade. It is to be expected that many people who are summoned for jury service will have some type of experience in its usage and may attempt to make reference to it. This leads to jury members searching for information about their case online. Public confidence in the jury system is waning whilst miscarriages of justice, as a result of misuse of the internet by jurors, is increasing. Recent case law has identified a variety of different types of jury impropriety and has confirmed the limitations imposed by the protection of the confidentiality of jury deliberations.
How can the misuse be stopped? What can be defined as a misuse of the internet? Do only conscious findings count or even findings by chance? How do one deal with „stumbling“ over information? James Michael Corbett gives an analysis into the problem of internet misuse committed by jurors in a court of law. From a practical point of view, he considers how serious the problem of misuse of the internet by jurors is and discusses the arguments for and/or against different approaches to overcoming the problem. Abolishing the misuse is the only way to prevent victims of having to be put through the whole process a second time because the jury may be discharged along with a new jury being empanelled.
Table of Contents
1. Task
2. The Debate Circling the Jury and the Internet
2.1 Discovery of Misconduct by Accident or Declaration
2.2 Increase in Internet Usage
2.3 Advances in Global Technology
2.4 The position outside the UK
2.5 The impact of Internet Misuse
2.6 Different approaches to overcoming Internet Misuse
2.6.1 The Amendment of Legislation
2.6.2 Judge directions
2.6.3 The appointment of an independent J M
3. Recommendations
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the growing crisis of internet misuse by jurors, analyzing the tension between maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and protecting the confidentiality of jury deliberations. It evaluates whether current legislative safeguards are sufficient in the digital age and assesses proposed reforms to address juror misconduct.
- The prevalence and detection of juror internet misuse in the UK and abroad.
- The impact of global technological advancements on the juror environment.
- The adequacy of current judge directions in preventing online research.
- Evaluation of proposals such as the appointment of an independent monitor and legislative amendments.
Excerpt from the Book
The Debate Circling the Jury and the Internet
The use of the internet has increased over the recent decade and it is to be expected that many people who are summoned for jury service will have some experience in its usage and may attempt to make reference to it. According to Catriona Murdoch, the true extent of internet misuse is unknown and it is in fact the accidental discovery of jury misconduct that is becoming more recognised. This is a valid point given that the judiciary cannot seem to identify the exact number of people who are committing misconduct. One of the difficulties is the rule laid down in section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which precludes the court from inquiring into the jury’s deliberations. The rule against any investigation or inquiry into the jury’s deliberations is a rule of admissibility, R v Mirza R v Connor 2004 UKHL 2 1 ALL ER 923 2004 1 AC 1118. Lord Hope explained that after the verdict had been returned, evidence of things said by jurors during their deliberations in private are inadmissible. This rule is accepted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Gregory v UK (application No 22299/3 (1997) 25 EHRR 577 and Sander v UK (application No 34129/96) (2000) 31 EHRR 1003. Therefore we can understand the potential issue this raises at the outset.
Summary of Chapters
Task: This chapter outlines the prompt and the core problem of declining public confidence in the jury system due to increasing misuse of the internet.
The Debate Circling the Jury and the Internet: This section explores the difficulty in identifying the extent of juror misconduct due to rules of admissibility and the lack of investigation into jury deliberations.
Discovery of Misconduct by Accident or Declaration: This section details how internet misuse typically comes to light only through accidental discoveries or voluntary declarations by jurors.
Increase in Internet Usage: This chapter analyzes research indicating that a significant percentage of jurors actively search for trial-related information online.
Advances in Global Technology: This chapter discusses how the prevalence of technology in daily life increases the risk of accidental exposure to prejudicial information.
The position outside the UK: This section examines the American experience with juror internet use and its impact on the federal courtroom.
The impact of Internet Misuse: This chapter highlights the negative consequences of juror misconduct, including the necessity of discharging juries and the resulting delays and trauma for participants.
Different approaches to overcoming Internet Misuse: This section evaluates various strategies, including legislative changes, clearer judge directions, and the appointment of an independent monitor.
The Amendment of Legislation: This subsection discusses the need to update the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to address modern communication methods like social media.
Judge directions: This subsection focuses on the need for clearer, more persuasive instructions to help jurors understand why they must avoid extrinsic information.
The appointment of an independent J M: This subsection evaluates the proposal of using an independent official to monitor jury deliberations for potential misconduct.
Recommendations: This concluding section summarizes proposed legislative and procedural reforms, including the repeal of section 8 and the introduction of a monitor.
Keywords
Internet Misuse, Juror Misconduct, Contempt of Court Act 1981, Jury Deliberations, Judicial Integrity, Legal Reform, Digital Technology, Fair Trial, Evidence Admissibility, Jury Instructions, Court Procedure, Independent Monitor, Social Media.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work focuses on the legal and practical challenges posed by jurors accessing the internet during trials, which threatens the fairness of the judicial process.
What is the core research question?
The core inquiry is how to address the rise of internet misuse by jurors while balancing the need for jury independence and trust.
What is the specific role of the "independent J M"?
The J M would act as an independent official present during deliberations to monitor for and report any instances of internet misuse.
What are the main legislative recommendations?
The author recommends amending the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prohibit court-based tweeting and repealing section 8 to allow for inquiries into jury misconduct.
Why is the "watchdog effect" discussed?
The watchdog effect refers to the idea that jurors are less likely to misuse the internet if they know they are being held accountable by their peers, who are legally obligated to report such behavior.
What is the significance of the "two-stage test"?
This is a proposed requirement for judge directions: first, to ensure jurors understand what is prohibited, and second, to ensure they understand the importance of these prohibitions for trial fairness.
How does the author view the "separation of powers" in the UK context?
The author argues that increasing control over the jury via legal orders potentially undermines the traditional freedom of the jury and suggests an erosion of the separation of powers.
What evidence is provided to show that internet misuse is increasing?
The author cites research by Professor Cheryl Thomas, showing that 5–12% of jurors actively search for information, with figures being higher in high-profile cases.
- Arbeit zitieren
- James Michael Corbett (Autor:in), 2012, Internet Misuse by Jurors. The Debate Circling The Jury and the Internet, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/924886
