R v David Michael WILLS, Caroll Anne HENDERSON, Peter James HENDERSON [2012] NSWDC 285

R v David Michael WILLS, Caroll Anne HENDERSON, Peter James HENDERSON [2012] NSWDC 285

The responses reported by the court officer, together with the juror's open access to the Facebook site, indicated that nothing was intended to be hidden and that the comments were general, permissible comments about the trial rather than comments about the evidence. There was no prima facie indication that the juror had been influenced by extraneous material or had breached s 68C. Further questioning risked causing jurors to feel that the Court suspected them or was attacking their integrity, which could itself prejudice a party or require discharge. The requirements of ss 55D and 55DA were not met, so examination on oath was not necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application for Examination of Jurors
Outcome
Application to examine the jurors on oath was not granted.
Legal Topics
['examination of Jurors' 'facebook' 'social Media' 'jury Integrity' 'extraneous Material']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'jury Law'] ['examination of Jurors' 'facebook' 'social Media' 'jury Integrity' 'extraneous Material']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Application for Examination of Jurors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the juror and other jurors nominated as Facebook friends should be examined pursuant to ss 55D and 55DA of the Jury Act 1977.' 'Whether jurors should be asked to open their Facebook pages for inspection.' 'Whether Facebook comments indicated that a juror had been influenced by extraneous material or had potentially breached s 68C of the Jury Act 1977.']

Ratio Decidendi

The responses reported by the court officer, together with the juror's open access to the Facebook site, indicated that nothing was intended to be hidden and that the comments were general, permissible comments about the trial rather than comments about the evidence. There was no prima facie indication that the juror had been influenced by extraneous material or had breached s 68C. Further questioning risked causing jurors to feel that the Court suspected them or was attacking their integrity, which could itself prejudice a party or require discharge. The requirements of ss 55D and 55DA were not met, so examination on oath was not necessary.

Court Disposition

Application to examine the jurors on oath was not granted.

Orders

  • ['It is not necessary to examine the jurors on oath at this stage.']