Juror jailed for contempt

martyh · 24-01-2012, 10:30

Quote:

A juror who researched a criminal case online has been found guilty of contempt of court and jailed for six months.
Theodora Dallas, 34, held her hands over her mouth as her sentence was announced in the High Court.
The academic, who is a Greek national, will have to serve three months in prison before she can be released on licence for the remainder of the jail term.
The High Court heard how Dallas researched a defendant when she was on the jury for a GBH trial and then told other jurors what she had found out.

The trial had to be abandoned. The defendant was eventually convicted but only after a retrial conducted at great expense to the taxpayer.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16154703

A good decision imo .The internet cannot be relied on to gather information on a persons criminal past ,even if it where allowed to be used .Which raises the question on whether we should be allowing past criminal records to influence jurors and sentencing

chris9991 · 24-01-2012, 10:34

Don't they usually refer to the criminal records after the jury has reached it's verdict?

Tuftus · 24-01-2012, 10:39

I saw this on the news last night, considering the Judge told the jurors specifically not to research the defendant I think that she got what she deserved.

But it did raise some interesting questions though. If you were selected for Jury service, you would effectively have to have a blackout on all media, smart phones and the internet?

martyh · 24-01-2012, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

Don't they usually refer to the criminal records after the jury has reached it's verdict?

That may be the case but afaik the jury are not permitted any knowledge of prior arrests or convictions

**Paul M** · 24-01-2012, 11:07

She probably got a bigger sentence than the defendant

**Russ** · 24-01-2012, 11:27

Apparently she claimed her English wasn't good enough to understand the judge's instructions. Should someone who doesn't understand English very well be on a jury?

danielf · 24-01-2012, 11:33

She's been in the UK for 15 years and worked as a University Lecturer. I find it hard to believe she didn't understand the judge's instructions.

Having said that, I'm a little surprised UK citizenship isn't a requirement for jurors.

martyh · 24-01-2012, 11:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

She's been in the UK for 15 years and worked as a University Lecturer. I find it hard to believe she didn't understand the judge's instructions.

Having said that, I'm a little surprised UK citizenship isn't a requirement for jurors.

Quote:

have lived in the UK for any period of at least five years since you were 13 years old

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJus...vice/DG_072707

apparently not

danielf · 24-01-2012, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJus...vice/DG_072707

apparently not

Indeed. I looked it up myself earlier. As I said, I was a bit surprised at that.

Pierre · 24-01-2012, 16:22

deserves everything she got, stupid cow.

VOICEofJUSTICE · 26-01-2012, 00:25

The media as usual is distorting the facts and plainly just making stuff up. For a different account, have a look here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/kenn...id=tSTOavMcDP&

**Stuart** · 26-01-2012, 00:35

That source is hardly going to be unbiased. Also, if she was just looking for info to accurately define Grevious Bodily Harm, wouldn't it have been a staggering coincidence if she accidentally stumbled upon information on the particular defendant? After all, GBH is (sadly) not a rare crime. There must be thousands of cases she could have looked up.

Even then, she discussed this info with her fellow jurors. I thought it was common knowledge that jurors were not allowed to have any foreknowledge of the case or defendant?

Aha. Finally got round to reading the Sky article. She actually looked up GBH in Luton (the area where the crime took place), which begs me to wonder exactly why she would do that. GBH is GBH wherever it's committed, so I don't think the looking up the definition excuse is valid.

Tim Deegan · 26-01-2012, 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Apparently she claimed her English wasn't good enough to understand the judge's instructions. Should someone who doesn't understand English very well be on a jury?

Absolutly not.

A jury member needs to be able to undertsand what is said, and what is going on in a court case.

If they know anything about the defendant then they are supposed to declare it, as it could influence their verdict. This is why it must be very difficult selecting a jury for famous people.

VOICEofJUSTICE · 26-01-2012, 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

That source is hardly going to be unbiased. Also, if she was just looking for info to accurately define Grevious Bodily Harm, wouldn't it have been a staggering coincidence if she accidentally stumbled upon information on the particular defendant? After all, GBH is (sadly) not a rare crime. There must be thousands of cases she could have looked up.

Even then, she discussed this info with her fellow jurors. I thought it was common knowledge that jurors were not allowed to have any foreknowledge of the case or defendant?

Aha. Finally got round to reading the Sky article. She actually looked up GBH in Luton (the area where the crime took place), which begs me to wonder exactly why she would do that. GBH is GBH wherever it's committed, so I don't think the looking up the definition excuse is valid.

It may not be unbiased but I think it shows the story in a different light and makes you wonder how much of what is written in the press is true and how much is for publicity. She's clearly being used as a scapegoat and the judges just do as they please!

http://davidkesslerauthor.com/?tag=theodora-dallas

As for knowing that you cannot research the case, you'd probably be surprised how many people (particularly foreigners) don't know what the rules are and don't understand them clearly when they've been explained.

danielf · 26-01-2012, 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by VOICEofJUSTICE

It may not be unbiased but I think it shows the story in a different light and makes you wonder how much of what is written in the press is true and how much is for publicity. She's clearly being used as a scapegoat and the judges just do as they please!

Not very clearly to me...

Quote:

As for knowing that you cannot research the case, you'd probably be surprised how many people (particularly foreigners) don't know what the rules are and don't understand them clearly when they've been explained.

I'm a foreigner (and an academic), and I'm a little surprised why it didn't occur to Dr. Dallas to ask the judge for clarification, both where she was confused about what GBH means, and what research she can do. Also, according to the sources quoted, she didn't just advice the other jury members on her findings regarding the meaning of GBH, but rather on the suspect's history of criminal convictions. I'm sure it will have been pointed out to her that this isn't allowed, and I don't buy the language barrier excuse for a minute. Frankly, it looks like Dr. Dallas has been stupid. Perhaps not so much for doing research, but certainly for telling other jury members about her findings.