A High Court judge has discharged the jury in a Carlow rape trial after it emerged some jurors had carried out their own research on the internet about the case.
Mr Justice Micheal Ó Higgins told the jury of four men and eight women that it was “beyond regrettable” that some jurors had ignored his explicit instructions given to jurors not to carry out private research.
He said that their actions “set to nought the careful methodical process you were otherwise engaged in” and meant that the complainant and the defendant would have to go through the whole trial process again.
The trial, which involved allegations of rape, assault causing harm and threats to kill, opened two weeks ago. The jury at the Central Criminal Court began deliberations on Tuesday.
Jurors had deliberated for four and a half hours when Justice Ó Higgins suspended deliberations after this issue came to light on Wednesday
Addressing the jury yesterday (Thursday), Justice Ó Higgins stated that consideration was given to initiating contempt of court proceedings. He said the court had decided to leave it as matters stand, but that it is open to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to initiate contempt of court proceedings.
He said the court did not know the identity of the parties who chose not to comply with the clear directions he gave and that “in a sense, therefore, I am directing these comments at the jury body”.
On Wednesday, the judge was passed a note outlining concerns on the part of a juror about the actions of other jurors. This juror was then questioned about her concerns.
On foot of this information, counsel for the State and the defendant both applied to have the jury discharged. The matter was adjourned to yesterday (Thursday) to allow the prosecuting counsel, Eoin Lawlor SC, to obtain instructions from the DPP.
In the absence of the jury, Mr Lawlor told the court that the DPP did not “intend to invite the court to take any particular step”. Justice Ó Higgins said that, in light of this, the court was not minded to commence contempt proceedings at this stage.
He noted that it is contempt of court for jury members to bring in material to a case from outside and that the Law Reform Commission has recommended the creation of a distinct offence to cover this.
He said that information available to the court was inadequate to enable him to be satisfied that “it would be a valid use of the court’s time to embark on contempt proceedings”.
In his subsequent address to the jury, he said that he had explicitly instructed jurors not to carry out any private research, not to access the internet to acquire information about persons in the case and not to breach the confidentiality of the jury room.
He said he gave those directions because those activities prejudice the administration of justice and the fairness of the trial if such activity takes place. He said this was unfair to defendants and complainants and “inimical to the interests of justice”.
He said if extraneous material is actively discussed by jury members, it creates “a real risk that the minds of jurors will be impacted or affected by material that is prejudicial in a way that can be difficult to gauge or measure”.
He said that is the situation that has occurred here and that it is “beyond regrettable”.
He said it is even more “unacceptable and more regrettable” that this occurred at such a late stage in the trial and after deliberations had begun. He asked jurors to “imagine the heightened stress” on both the complainant and the defendant at this point in the trial.
The defendant was remanded on continuing bail to May 13 next to fix a new trial date.
