Social Media, Jurors, and the Right to a Fair Trial

Overview of the Right to a Fair Trial

  • Central pillar of the criminal justice system.
  • Accused entitled to an impartial jury.
  • Jurors to determine judgements based solely on evidence presented in the trial.

Impact of Social Media on Fair Trials

  • Rising concern regarding social media and internet's role in modifying jurors' behavior.
  • Majority of Australians connect online daily across various settings.
  • Continuous online engagement poses threats to the fairness of trials.

Terminology Used to Describe Juror Misconduct

  • Various terms coined to describe inappropriate juror behavior:
    • Googling jurors
    • Internet-surfing jurors
    • Digital injustice
    • Wired jurors
    • Rogue jurors
  • No single term fully captures the extent of juror misconduct.

Real-Life Examples of Juror Misconduct

  • 2013 Case in New South Wales:
    • Juror googled "murder" and "manslaughter" during deliberations.
  • Expert Topic Searches:
    • Cases (e.g., 2007 and 2016) where jurors searched technical topics unrelated to expert testimonies presented.
  • Online Investigations into Accused:
    • South Australia (2016): Jurors searched defendants' past, revealing irrelevant and prejudicial affiliations.
    • New South Wales (2002): Jurors discovered prior allegations of the accused after prior acquittal.

Consequences of Online Searches

  • Such searches can lead to misunderstandings about legal terms.
  • May mislead jurors on the case's facts and history, affecting their impartiality.
  • Example: Juror informed about prior trials affects their decision process radically.

Communication and Social Media Posts by Jurors

  • Online Interactions:
    • Jurors engaging with each other via social media can distract from the trial.
    • Case (2013): Jurors became Facebook friends and shared altered images that referenced judicial authority.
  • Prejudicial Statements Made Publicly:
    • Posts suggesting bias against certain types of offenders, influencing public perception of justice.
  • Calls for Execution of Offenders:
    • Explicit biases exhibited through social media posts related to cases, e.g., advocating severe measures against sex offenders in a trial context.

Implications for the Justice System

  • Juror-related online activities bring the integrity of the legal process into question.
  • The potential for both real and perceived biases affects jury impartiality.
  • Innocuous posts may provoke unsolicited responses impacting juror neutrality.

Research and Legislative Response

  • Limited research into this phenomenon in Australia and globally.
  • The Tasmania Law Reform Institute is examining social media use by jurors:
    • Assessing the scope and implications of online juror misconduct.
    • Evaluating current legal safeguards against misconduct.
    • Exploring potential reforms to improve jury integrity.
  • Inviting public input on the proposed changes until 4 October 2019.