jurors must decide a case based solely on the evidence presented in court; they are not allowed to carry

out their own research or to rely on any other information they may find out while the trial is in progress
There has always been a risk of juror misconduct through jury members being influenced by external
information - for example, by something they have read in the press. The problem has become much
more acute with the rise in the use of information technology and widespread use of the internet.
Indeed, the internet has had a profound impact on a juror's ability and opportunity to obtain or to
communicate extraneous information relating to the trial in which they are involved. Cheryl Thomas
(2013) argues that: One specific type of improper conduct, jurors' improper use of the internet to look
for information about their case or communicate information about the case to a third party, is currently
the most pressing area of concern and has clear implications for fair trials in this as well as other
jurisdictions. Thomas's research found that: Or jurors questioned, 23 per cent were confused about the
rules on internet use; 62 per cent o jurors questioned had not heard of recent prosecutions of jurors for
misconduct and up to 7 per cent of jurors admitted to having used the internet to lOOk for information
which may be prohibited.

Jurors who were confused about permitted internet use had different types of misconceptions: 16 per
cent of these jurors believed they could not use the internet for any reason at all while serving as a juror,
5 per cent belleved there was no restriction at all on their use of the internet during the trial and 2 per
cent believed they could look for information about the case as long as they did not let it affect their
judgment. In addition, 3 per cent of jurors shared their experience of jury service on social networking
sites; 1 per cent blogged or chatted online about doing jury service; 7 per cent looked up information
about prosecution and or defence teams; a further 7 per cent looked up information about the judge; 6
per cent looked up information about legal terms used in the case, and 1 per cent visited the crime
scene online. In order to better inform jurors of the rules on juror conduct, including those relating to
social media, a revised juror notice, 'Your legal responsibilities as a juror', was introduced in March
2018). A Criminal Practice Direction requires judges not only to direct the jury as to their responsibilities,
but also to provide a copy of the notice to each juror. The evidence from the pilot introduction of the
new juror notice suggested that jurors understanding of their legal responsibilities has increased
substantially as a result (see Attorney General 'Response to call for evidence on the impact of social
media on the administration of justice', March 2019, para.2.6,

The modern problem of the use of the internet is illustrated by the case of AG v Dallas

[2012] EWHC 156 (Admin). A juror, Theodora Dallas, was given a six-month prison sentence for contempt
of court after it emerged that, during the course of the trial.she had carried out internet research on the
defendant, who was accused of a violent crime involving torture of the victim. During her internet
research on the defendant, Dallas discovered that he had previously been convicted of a rape involving
violence.

In his directions to the jury at the end of the trial, the judge reminded the jurors that they were only to
act on the evidence that they had heard during the trial and not to speculate or guess about what other
evidence there might be. However, during jury deliberations, Dallas mentioned what she had found out
on the internet about the defendant's previous conviction. The jury could not reach a decision on the
first day and, before they reconvened the next day, another juror reported to a court official that Dallas
had found out information about past convictions on the internet. The judge was informed and he
discharged the jury, warning that there might be a police investigation.
During Theodora Dallas's trial, the Lord Chief justice explained how internet research interfered with due
process. He said:

In imposing a custodial sentence on Dallas, the Lord Chiet Justice took the opportunity to underline the
danger to the integrity of the trial process presented by jurors making improper use of the internet to
learn things about the defendant that have not been used in evidence at trial and which could unfairly
influence their decision. He said:

Misuse of the internet by a juror is always a most serious irregularity, and an effective custodial sentence
is virtually inevitable. The objective of such a sentence is to ensure that the integrity of the process of
trial by jury is sustained. The Dallas case was followed by two further cases, AG v Davey and AG v Beard
[2013]

EWHC 2317 (Admin), 2013] All ER (D) 391. In a combined judgment, the High Court found the jurors to
be in contempt of court. Davey had researched the detendant on the internet while serving as a juror,
and, in a different trial, Beard had tweeted information about the case while serving as a juror in a case
concerning a pedophile. in its judgment on the cases, the Court held that, although judges try to warn
jurors hot to use the internet or social networking sites for any purpose in relation to the Case, judges do
not use consistent language and jurors do not seem to be clear in their understanding of what is
permitted and what is prohibited.

Solicitor General v Stoddart

in Solicitor General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361 (QB), a Juror who admitted that he had conducted
internet research into the background ot a defendant during a burglary trial, which caused the conviction
to be quashed, received a four-month prison sentence (suspended for 12 months). The jury had watched
a DVD which contained a specific warning to jurors against conducting internet research; they had also
seen warning notices in the jury room and received a warning from the judge not to carry out such
research. Despite this, Mr Stoddart, one of the jurors, sought information about the defendant's prior
convictions by carrying out internet research. In the sentencing proceedings for contempt of court, sir
Brian Leveson noted that the integrity of the criminal justice system requires all who participate within it
to observe the highest standards of behaviour and so to ensure open, transparent and obvious
comprance with all that due process requires. Should circumstances arise in which the public could no
longer have confidence [in] the performance of any part of the system, our mechanisms for resolving the
determination of guilt of those accused of crime will collapse .. Breach of these requirements, therefore,
is and must be taken very seriously.

the integrity of the criminal justice system requires all who participate within it to observe the highest
standards of behaviour and so to ensure open, transparent and obvious comprance with all that due
process requires. Should circumstances arise in which the public could no longer have confidence [in] the
performance of any part of the system, our mechanisms for resolving the determination of guilt of those
accused of crime will collapse .. Breach of these requirements, therefore, is and must be taken very
seriously.

As a result of concern about jury misuse of the internet and cases such as Dallas, the Criminal Justice and
Courts Act 2015 created four new criminal offences of juror misconduct. There offences were based on
recommendations made by the Law Commission report in December 2013 into juror misconduct and
internet publications.

The Commission took the view that the current law and procedure was problematic because of the lack
of clarity for jurors and the lack of consistency across courts. A statutory offence would be consistent

across courts and would clarity the law.) [3:38 am, 27/10/2023] 🥀: in the wake of the Law Commission's
recommendations a variety of reforms were introduced to broadly address the impact of new
technologies and individual juror conduct regarding the access and disclosure of information relating to
jury service which would be in contempt of court. The reforms included the repeal of s.8 of the
Contempt of Court Act in England and Wales.

The reforms implemented by the Criminal justice and Courts Act 2015 created a range of new indictable
offences which were thereby inserted into the juries Act 1974. The specific offences address:

research by jurors (S.71, offence 20A)

• sharing research with jurors (S.72, offence 20B)

* Jurors engaging in other prohibited content (s.73, offence 20C)

disclosing the jury's deliberations (S.74, offence 20D). /

The types of research prohibited include seeking information about anyone involved in the case (for
example, the parties, witnesses, the legal team and the court staff) and information on substantive law,
procedural law and law of evidence. The types of

'other prohibited conduct' relate to jurors intentionally trying the case on information other than that
provided during the trial. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment and or a fine.

These provisions provide for possible defences when the disclosure may be in the interests ot justice. A
juror with real concerns about specific issues affecting the fairness of the deliberation process, such as
the commission of offences or contempt, can therefore make disclosures in certain situations.

In September 2017, the Attorney General issued a Call for Evidence to evaluate if there is a risk to the
administration of justice in criminal trials from the use of social media and, it so, whether the risk is
increasing (see the resulting report, Response to Call for Evidence on the impact of social media on the
administration of justice, March 2019, at https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data

file/783627/Call_For_Evidence_05.03.2019_v2.pdf). This followed a murder trial which was halted after

the judge decided that prejudicial comments online meant that the defendants would not be able to
have a fair trial. The aim of the Call for Evidence was to collect evidence to establish the level of risk of
social m…
The 'Response to the Call for Evidence', published in March 2019, concluded that in fact the challenges
that social media poses for the administration of justice are 'not unmanageable. The report identified a
number of themes (on p.2):

Social media posts which are prejudicial or which identify those subject to anonymity orders are not
uncommon, and there is an added risk that this material could be seen by jurors.

" Many social media users may be unaware of reporting restrictions and of what would constitute a
breach of an anonymity order or contempt of court.

The judiciary generally have the tools to mitigate the effects of adverse social media posts; however,
these tools can delay the trial process.

Several means are suggested to deal with the problems that do exist. The report proposes an increase in
public legal education (including the revised juror notice, discussed above, which was introduced as a
result of evidence to the review); developing guidance on contempt led by the judicial Office to be used
by judges, awyers and the public; and collaborative working with social media companies to deal with
unlawful social media posts