6 months jail for juror who looked up the defendant on the internet

I see the juror who looked up the defendant on the internet got 6 months jail for contempt of court. Personally, I think this is a bit harsh to say the least.

Yes she broke the law and ignored the judges directions. But six months bird for that?

We're all surrounded, constantly by news and TV and the internet, it's really hard to avoid.

Should jurors be totally isolated during a trial? Cos lets face it, that's the only way to be certain they're not going to be influenced in some way or another, even inadvertantly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research?intcmp=239

That (proactive):

I see the juror who looked up the defendant on the internet

Is markedly different from that (incidental):

We're all surrounded, constantly by news and TV and the internet, it's really hard to avoid.

 

Should jurors be totally isolated during a trial? Cos lets face it, that's the only way to be certain they're not going to be influenced in some way or another, even inadvertantly

Yes she broke the law and ignored the judges directions

6 months does seem a bit harsh, though, considering what sentences "real" criminals are getting. Especially considering the juror's "person type".

A hefty fine and suspended sentence would have seemed more appropriate, and woud have sent the same message.

The sentence reflex the breach of trust and abuse of the court system.

Apparently.

I see the juror who looked up the defendant on the internet got 6 months jail for contempt of court. Personally, I think this is a bit harsh to say the least.

 

Yes she broke the law and ignored the judges directions. But six months bird for that?

 

We're all surrounded, constantly by news and TV and the internet, it's really hard to avoid.

 

Should jurors be totally isolated during a trial? Cos lets face it, that's the only way to be certain they're not going to be influenced in some way or another, even inadvertantly

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research?intcmp=239

You seem to be miss representing the case against her. It wasn't so much that she looked up the defendant on the internet. It was afterwards when she tried to use that information to influence the other jurors. I'm not exactly sure that that results in a fair trial.

If she'd kept it to herself, no-one would have found out.

What she actually did was jury tampering, so I reckon contempt of court and six months sentence with 3 inside is actually pretty lenient.

You seem to be miss representing the case against her. It wasn't so much that she looked up the defendant on the internet. It was afterwards when she tried to use that information to influence the other jurors. I'm not exactly sure that that results in a fair trial.

I didn't read that she tried to influence the other jurors, but maybe I missed it. It's possible. Of course the mistake she made was telling someone.

I bet there are other jurors up and down the land that 'look people up' all of the time, but don't tell. When you're that much involved in something like a court case (I would imagine...I never done jury duty), I would have thought human nature would urge yoou to want to know more. Inquisitive creatures we humans are!

Six months nick is well over the top in my view! Compared with what 'actual' criminals get. I bet she rues the day she got the letter from the jury service saying she had to be a juror!

I didn't read that she tried to influence the other jurors, but maybe I missed it. It's possible. Of course the mistake she made was telling someone.

 

I bet there are other jurors up and down the land that 'look people up' all of the time, but don't tell. When you're that much involved in something like a court case (I would imagine...I never done jury duty), I would have thought human nature would urge yoou to want to know more. Inquisitive creatures we humans are!

 

Six months nick is well over the top in my view! Compared with what 'actual' criminals get. I bet she rues the day she got the letter from the jury service saying she had to be a juror!

But she is an actual real life criminal - her behaviour could have far more wider reaching effects than a burglar. Just imagine the millions of pound s wasted on a trial for it to be quashed and the other criminal let off due to a mistrial.

She got 8 months , serving 3.

One of many to be prosecuted i believe.

The lord chief justice said Dallas, who was in court for the hearing, had deliberately disobeyed the trial judge's instructions not to search the internet and added: "The damage to the administration of justice is obvious."

You cant get much clearer than that can you, ignoring this she does her “homework” and then tells the others about it ……… not a good idea.

But she is an actual real life criminal - her behaviour could have far more wider reaching effects than a burglar. Just imagine the millions of pound s wasted on a trial for it to be quashed and the other criminal let off due to a mistrial.

She got 8 months , serving 3.

One of many to be prosecuted i believe.

Well, I think if I get a letter calling me for jury service I'll be off to the docs and get a sick note! It's waaaay too dangerous to be a juror in this day and age.

It's (as the article I linked) an increasing problem, and they don't have an answer for it. Draconian sentences won't stop it happening. We're human beings, not criminals.

Yes, undermining the whole process by which a defendant might get a fair trail is clearly not a very important crime at all

Well, I think if I get a letter calling me for jury service I'll be off to the docs and get a sick note! It's waaaay too dangerous to be a juror in this day and age.

 

It's (as the article I linked) an increasing problem, and they don't have an answer for it. Draconian sentences won't stop it happening. We're human beings, not criminals.

Everyones a human being until they break the law, then they're a criminal and should be brought to task for being a criminal and potentially wasting taxpayers money.

What a result for the police haters, if the criminals keep getting off for people ignoring instructions,lawyers adhering to the law to get the criminal off scott free(speaking clock).

People should be 100% behind upholding the law or be happy to be prosecuted when they aren't.

Yes, undermining the whole process by which a defendant might get a fair trail is clearly not a very important crime at all

You think this sort of thing doesn't happen up and down the country all of the time? That's very naive