10 Oct 2018
The juror's reported remark was plausibly a reference to propensity evidence heard at trial rather than to irrelevant prior convictions; there was no real risk the jury had been infected by extraneous prejudicial material, so appointment of a lawyer to interview jurors was not justified and the application was declined.
19 Sept 2016
The extrinsic material accessed and discussed by jurors, including emotive and non‑New Zealand law material on rape and penetration, was capable of affecting the jury's verdict; the trial judge's inquiries and directions were insufficient to remove the risk of prejudice; accordingly a miscarriage of justice occurred, the convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered.
31 Jul 2008
The Court held the challenged remark was admissible as evidence of the applicant's state of mind, not propensity; factual findings that the alleged juror contact did not occur were concurrent and not displaced; neither ground raised a matter of general principle nor a real risk of miscarriage of justice, so leave was refused.