R v K [2003] NSWCCA 406

R v K [2003] NSWCCA 406

Evidence of jurors having conducted independent internet searches that uncovered prejudicial material about the accused—potentially inviting use of prohibited tendency or coincidence reasoning, or bad character assumptions—constituted a material irregularity. In the absence of instructions to guard against such prejudice and given inconsistencies among jurors, the Court could not be satisfied the verdict was unaffected. The conviction could not stand and a new trial was required.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: K
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Jury Misconduct, Internet Research by Jurors, Appeal Against Conviction, Procedural Irregularity, Murder Trial, Jury Act Interpretation
Criminal Law Jury Misconduct Internet Research by Jurors Appeal Against Conviction Procedural Irregularity Murder Trial Jury Act Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

K

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the murder trial miscarried because jurors obtained and shared highly prejudicial, irrelevant, and inadmissible information about the appellant through internet searches
  2. 2 Admissibility of post-verdict affidavits from jurors about their knowledge and jury room conduct
  3. 3 Whether the irregularity affected the verdict so as to require a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of jurors having conducted independent internet searches that uncovered prejudicial material about the accused—potentially inviting use of prohibited tendency or coincidence reasoning, or bad character assumptions—constituted a material irregularity. In the absence of instructions to guard against such prejudice and given inconsistencies among jurors, the Court could not be satisfied the verdict was unaffected. The conviction could not stand and a new trial was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction and sentence quashed