An “unashamed and unrepentant” juror who spent two decades in the police has been jailed for six months after causing a rape trial to collapse by researching the defendant online.
Jason Carr thought he “knew better than the lawyers” and used his phone to search for details about the man on trial believing there were gaps in the evidence, a judge at Liverpool crown court said.
This was despite a warning from the judge that Googling anything about the case was illegal and would result in a prison sentence.
The 52-year-old, who also lied on a jury form saying he had retired from the police when in fact he had being thrown out for gross misconduct, told fellow jurors of the results of his research during deliberations on 28 April.
He seemed “proud” of himself until his fellow jurors reported his actions to court staff, said Andrew Menary KC, the recorder of Liverpool, sentencing him to six months in prison after he admitted two offences under the Juries Act 1974 involving carrying out internet research during a trial and disclosing the information to other members of the jury.
The case at Chester crown court, which was already a retrial, had to be tried for a third time, with the alleged victim forced to give evidence again and the defendant having to spend further time in custody before he was eventually found not guilty.
When confronted, Carr initially claimed he believed the trial judge had said they could look up information about the defendant. He also claimed his behaviour had been an oversight while not thinking rationally following the tragic death of a close friend.
“I don’t accept that your actions were the result of a mistake or confusion or a misunderstanding of your role. It could have involved a significant error of judgment but I don’t accept it was inadvertent,” said Judge Menary.
“All the evidence I have seen from the other jurors show clearly that this was not some innocent blundering realisation that you had done something you shouldn’t have done – but was an arrogant and determined attempt to reveal information that you knew full well you shouldn’t have had and certainly shouldn’t be sharing.”
In addition to the judge’s warning, jurors were also provided with a leaflet that reminded them: “As a juror you have taken a LEGAL OATH or AFFIRMATION to try the defendant based ONLY on the evidence you hear in court.
“It is ILLEGAL for you to LOOK for any information at all about your case on the INTERNET or ANYWHERE ELSE during the trial.”
Menary said: “In effect you thought you knew better than the lawyers in the case. You seemed proud of your research and unashamed and unrepentant – until your realisation that this disclosure had been reported by other jurors.”
Ali Naseem Bajwa, defending, said that Carr, who has no previous convictions, “made a mistake” and the consequences would affect him for years to come.
“It is easy to form an impression of an arrogant man with a sense of entitlement … nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.
#Juror #jailed #causing #rape #trial #collapse #researching #defendant #online #Crime
