Jury Misconduct Landmark Cases
🔹 What is Jury Misconduct?
Jury misconduct occurs when jurors behave inappropriately during a trial or deliberation, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial. This may include:
Discussing the case outside court (with outsiders or via social media)
Conducting independent research (e.g., Googling facts)
Introducing prejudicial or irrelevant information
Breaching confidentiality of jury deliberations
Bias or improper communication among jurors
Jury misconduct can lead to mistrials, quashed verdicts, or new trials if it risks unfairness or prejudice.
🔹 Legal Framework
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 protects trial fairness and jury secrecy.
Jury secrecy is key: courts generally do not investigate what happens in the jury room unless there is clear evidence of misconduct affecting the verdict.
Courts balance protecting jury deliberation privacy and ensuring fair trials.
🔹 Landmark Case Law on Jury Misconduct
1. R v. Mirza [2004] EWCA Crim 17
Facts:
The defendant argued that jury misconduct had occurred because jurors conducted unauthorized internet research during the trial.
Held:
Court held that jurors must base their verdict only on evidence presented. Research outside court undermines fairness.
Significance:
This was one of the first cases acknowledging the threat posed by jurors using the internet, emphasizing strict rules against it.
2. R v. Fraser [2019] EWCA Crim 298
Facts:
In this case, jurors sent text messages to each other during the trial that included inappropriate comments about the defendant.
Held:
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction because the jurors’ misconduct created a risk of unfairness.
Significance:
Showed that improper communications, even among jurors, can jeopardize verdict integrity.
3. R v. Twomey and others [2009] UKHL 16
Facts:
Several jurors were found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice by agreeing to accept bribes to acquit the defendants.
Held:
The House of Lords convicted the jurors for contempt and emphasized that corruption of the jury is a serious offence.
Significance:
Highlighted that jury misconduct extending to corruption can result in criminal charges against jurors.
4. R v. Young (Stephen) [1995] 1 WLR 1529 (HL)
Facts:
Jurors used a Ouija board to try and contact the deceased victim during deliberations.
Held:
The House of Lords ruled this was misconduct since the verdict was influenced by an external, improper method.
Significance:
A landmark case that reaffirmed that jurors must base verdicts solely on admissible evidence.
5. R v. Smith and other jurors [2010] EWCA Crim 29
Facts:
Jurors were found to have discussed the case on social media during the trial.
Held:
The Court of Appeal quashed convictions due to the risk the improper discussions influenced the verdict.
Significance:
Reinforced strict limits on jurors’ use of social media during trials.
6. R v. Karakaya [2017] EWCA Crim 1495
Facts:
Jurors brought in prejudicial external information about the defendant’s character during deliberations.
Held:
Court quashed the conviction as juror misconduct compromised fairness.
Significance:
Emphasized that introducing extraneous information violates the requirement to consider only court evidence.
7. R v. P (1991) 93 Cr App R 247
Facts:
A juror was found to have communicated with a witness outside court.
Held:
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction due to risk of unfair prejudice.
Significance:
Confirmed the strict prohibition on juror contact with witnesses or parties.
🔹 Summary Table of Jury Misconduct Cases
| Case | Misconduct Type | Outcome | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Mirza (2004) | Juror internet research | Conviction quashed | Jurors must rely on evidence only |
| R v. Fraser (2019) | Inappropriate juror texting | Conviction quashed | Juror communication can affect fairness |
| R v. Twomey (2009) | Juror bribery/corruption | Jurors convicted of contempt | Jury corruption is criminal offence |
| R v. Young (1995) | Use of Ouija board by jurors | Conviction quashed | Verdict must be evidence-based |
| R v. Smith (2010) | Social media discussion by jurors | Conviction quashed | Social media use prohibited |
| R v. Karakaya (2017) | Jurors introduced external info | Conviction quashed | No extraneous info in deliberations |
| R v. P (1991) | Juror contacting witness | Conviction quashed | No juror-witness contact allowed |
🔹 Key Takeaways
Jury misconduct seriously undermines trial fairness and can result in retrials or quashed verdicts.
The courts protect jury secrecy but intervene if misconduct risks an unfair trial.
Jurors must decide cases only on evidence presented in court.
Modern issues such as internet use and social media pose new challenges.
Serious misconduct such as bribery or corruption leads to criminal charges against jurors.
Courts carefully balance preserving the finality of verdicts with ensuring justice and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments