went online whilst deliberating (for 3 days), saw I'd been accused of other charges (ordered abandoned by the judge - which is why they were not in my trial), decided I must have done it before and found me guilty as a result.

But we're not allowed to ask and they are not allowed to admit it - or other jurors to reveal it.

Yet two jurors are jailed today for doing exactly that.

Where is Justice when you need it?

If any jurors in my trial are reading this, please approach your solicitor and ask him or her to approach a judge - if my suspicions are correct.

JK2006 wrote:
went online whilst deliberating (for 3 days), saw I'd been accused of other charges (ordered abandoned by the judge - which is why they were not in my trial), decided I must have done it before and found me guilty as a result.

But we're not allowed to ask and they are not allowed to admit it - or other jurors to reveal it.

Yet two jurors are jailed today for doing exactly that.

Where is Justice when you need it?

If any jurors in my trial are reading this, please approach your solicitor and ask him or her to approach a judge - if my suspicions are correct.

But then they might go to jail too.

That's why I suggest they ask a solicitor to approach a Judge who can authorise such a revelation. They should not do it themselves, go to the police or, God forbid, go to the media. But a lawyer can ask a Judge whether he or she would be prepared to hear evidence in confidence.

They need to say "we believe a miscarriage of justice occurred due to another juror accessing the Internet and telling the rest of us what they assumed - incorrectly - had taken place".

JK2006 wrote:
That's why I suggest they ask a solicitor to approach a Judge who can authorise such a revelation. They should not do it themselves, go to the police or, God forbid, go to the media. But a lawyer can ask a Judge whether he or she would be prepared to hear evidence in confidence.

They need to say "we believe a miscarriage of justice occurred due to another juror accessing the Internet and telling the rest of us what they assumed - incorrectly - had taken place".

Oh I see. Thank you.
I wonder how many of the jury would have had internet access? I know it was about twenty percent of people in the UK by 1998, so there might well be four or five jurors who could have looked.
The media coverage at the time seemed very prejudicial, and they would only have had to walk past a news stand to be influenced.
Is it known who they are?

I listened to a fascinating interview with an expert praising Napoleon's inquisatorial system of law.

I reckon JK's case wouldn't have got past first base,

Surely today virtually every juror has internet access, either via a laptop, tablet or smart phone. How can you police them NOT looking at it?

dixie wrote:
Surely today virtually every juror has internet access, either via a laptop, tablet or smart phone. How can you police them NOT looking at it?

Do they even bother telling them not to look now?

hedda wrote:
I listened to a fascinating interview with an expert praising Napoleon's inquisatorial system of law


But we didn't

hedda wrote:
I listened to a fascinating interview with an expert praising Napoleon's inquisatorial system of law.

I reckon JK's case wouldn't have got past first base,

The investigating Magistrate was indeed a good idea.