The use of social media by jurors during criminal trials is the focus of new research.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Undertaken by the Tasmania Law Reform Institute, an Issues Paper released on Wednesday aims to delve into why this type of misconduct occurs, the gravity of the matter, and what measures were in place to safeguard and deal with the misconduct if it occurs.
Author and research fellow Jemma Holt said indications were juror misconduct of this kind were under-reported to an extent, and reported cases represented the bare minimum.
"The detection of juror misconduct of this kind may be rare, but this does not necessarily mean that such misconduct is, in fact, rare," she said.
"Preserving an accused person's right to a fair trial at a time when social media and other internet platforms are omnipresent in our everyday lives is a significant concern.
"The majority of Australians are continuously online and engaged; at home, at work and in-between on our smartphones. If individuals continue this behaviour when they are jurors sitting in a criminal trial, they risk adversely affecting the accused's right to a fair trial."
IN OTHER NEWS
Ms Holt said an accused was entitled to a trial before an impartial jury, which makes its determination according to evidence.
She said commentators had coined many terms referring to the phenomenon of jurors inappropriately using social media and internet platforms during criminal trials, and the consequences for the accused's right to a fair trial.
"However, there is no single expression that encapsulates the full range of possible juror misconduct of this kind."
Within Australia, there had been documented cases of jurors using the internet to search legal terms, concepts, or other information relevant to a trail; using the internet and social media to search the accused, witnesses, victims, lawyers, or the judge; using the internet and social media to communicate with individuals involved in the trial; and, publishing material about the trial online.
After a 2015 Supreme Court trial in Launceston, court staff cleaning the jury room found three pages of computer-printed material, which contained results of searches on the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt" and "circumstantial evidence" from an online legal dictionary.
"This case may very well represent the tip of the iceberg when it comes to juror misconduct of this kind in Tasmania," Ms Holt said.
The Issues Paper can be viewed on the UTAS website. Submissions are open until October 4 and will form the institutes final report, which will be delivered to the Attorney-General early next year.