Page:HCF v The Queen.pdf/18

Gageler CJ Gleeson J Jagot J

Six jurors, including one reserve member who was not part of any deliberations of the jury, responded to the Sheriff's letter. Eight jurors did not respond. The Sheriff's report summarised the responses.

A juror, referred to as juror A, who was the author of the note to the trial judge, responded by saying:


 * 'Despite repeated statements by the judge that jurors must resist using the internet on this matter, the juror stated, that over the weekend, on two occasions, he had purposefully researched "rape" and "carnal knowledge" – definitions and custodial sentences for such. He used these sentencing durations to argue that a potential conviction could have severe personal consequences to defendant, and said, based on this, he did not believe that 20 year sentences were warranted on this "hearsay" charges over 30 years ago.'
 * 'The juror's behaviour demonstrated that his personal experiences informed his decision process significantly, and his blatant disregard for direction on internet use suggested even further his bias. He appeared to be "on a mission" to support the defendant in any way possible. My personal impression was that he was not so much "conspiring" with the defendant but a means to somehow justify his past issues. In conclusion, the juror's behaviour, in my opinion, demonstrated significant bias, but there were a small minority number of jurors who supported his views, over time, and most probably this would not have affected the totality of decisions.'"

A juror, referred to as juror B, responded by saying that a male juror (referred to as juror X) had "supposedly acknowledged he had indeed had some sort of incident occur where he was accused of sexual assault himself". In respect of the internet research issue, juror B said:


 * 'Juror X stated that he had researched the charge of carnal knowledge online, and as a result of what he perceived to be excessive severity in the potential sentencing outcome, he stated he was no longer willing to convict. Immediately, I brought everyone's attention to this, and I said very explicitly "It's not appropriate for you to base your decision on what you think the sentence will be–you can't do that."'"

The report of juror B's response continued:


 * [Juror B] seems to summarise the events by saying that 'because I had identified his bias, he had withdrawn his protest, and thus it