news, crime

A Canberra jury in an alleged sexual assault trial has been discharged after a juror disobeyed the judge's directions and Googled what happens when a jury is split 11 to 1. The court also heard it was possible a juror had Googled strangulation, a key issue in the case. The man on trial has been charged with committing an act of indecency and an act of indecency in the third degree, as well as three counts of suffocation, choking and a threat to kill. He had pleaded not guilty. The trial was due to enter its fourth day in the ACT Supreme Court on Monday with final addresses from the prosecution and defence and the judge’s summing up. But instead the court heard a juror had contacted the court on Friday saying that she believed a fellow juror had been Googling strangulation. The allegedly Googling juror was called into court where she admitted she had searched what happened when a jury was split 11-1. She also said she couldn't be 100 per cent sure no one had not Googled strangulation. Justice Michael Elkaim discharged the entire jury and declared a mistrial. It is routine for a judge at the beginning of a trial to warn the jury that they must not do their own investigations or research into the case. Jurors are also obliged to inform the court if something comes to their attention. The rules are to prevent the verdict being tainted by anything not heard according to the rules of evidence. A mistrial is costly for the community as well as the alleged victim and the accused, who will both now have to wait months until another trial is listed and heard again. The alleged victim may have to give evidence again while the community and the accused must bear the cost of a second trial. The barrister for the accused said the outcome was devastating for the man and his family. “Many people who work full time do not qualify for Legal Aid. Those that do work and are not wealthy struggle to pay for a basic defence team of a barrister and solicitor," barrister James Stewart said. "There are no costs provisions in the Supreme Court for this scenario when a juror expressly ignores the directions of a trial judge. "So today, because of the actions of a juror, both the accused and the complainant have been deprived of an outcome that either way would have resolved the matter." The man is likely to face a second trial on the charges at a later date.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-ct-migration/1b852312-03cb-4246-926e-646b4e567ea8/r0_100_2000_1230_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg