A juror posted comments on Facebook about how many of her colleagues thought the defendant was guilty.
The 29-year-old woman, who was serving at Manchester Crown Court, was hauled before the judge after a member of the public raised the alarm
The juror escaped with a warning but she could have been fined or jailed if she had been prosecuted for being in contempt of court.
Jurors are constantly reminded not to talk about the case with anyone, or discuss the evidence or their deliberations in the interests of a fair trial.
But, despite having done jury service three times, the woman defied the ban and posted information on her Facebook account from a mobile phone on her way home from the court case.
The woman, who was not named, was ordered to appear before Judge Roger Dutton after the trial ended with a hung jury and no conviction.
Sobbing, she claimed she did not know what she had done was wrong.
Judge Dutton told the woman that if there had been a conviction in the case, there would have had to have been a costly re-trial.
However, he said he had decided not to report the matter to police. He told her: "You were told not to talk about these matters and that was for good and sound reason and it was very wrong of you to fly in the face of what you were told.
"It’s vitally important all jurors summoned to the Crown Court to perform their public duty understand the direction not to discuss jury deliberations outside the room as a solemn direction, a serious direction, and its contravention is against the law."
The judge told the woman that her Facebook posting amounted to worldwide publication of highly confidential and sensitive information.
He said he had only decided not to contact the police after careful consideration. He told the woman: "The confidentiality of jury deliberations is fundamental to the jury system and the direction must be complied with at all times.
"It’s a serious breach of your responsibilities as a citizen and as a juror."
Speaking afterwards, the woman said: "It happened after someone on Facebook asked me ‘did he do it?’
"So, I told them how we were split as a jury. I didn’t think it counted as discussing the case.
"I thought my privacy settings would only keep it between my friends," she said.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
just goes to show that a jury is never a balanced view of what the public may think or even worse, a thicko like this could contribute to your future!
What a clown!
"Despite having done jury service three times"
What a joke, I am 66 years old and neither my wife or I have ever been called to serve on a jury. I mistakenly thought jurors were meant to be selected at random.
Why a big picture of the Facebook slogan?
Is Facebook to blame? No.
Put a picture of the dumb a** up there and remove them from this and any other possible selections.
I had a cop neighbour in GMP who used to tell me everything about the court cases he was working on. He even once showed me the GMP covert surveillance van, it was very nice too.
Just goes to show the jury for any case could be full of idiots.
Given that 15% of the populagtion are functionary illiterate and that -- judging by what passes for popular entertainment -- many members of the public have the intellectual capacity of a brain-damaged housefly, it is high time we had a basic capability test for jurors. Few people today have the capacity either to listen or concentrate for more than a few consecutive minutes as these are things which they never do. It's hardly surprising that our criminal justice system is a shambles and that the public has lost all confidence in it.
To think that if you are ever falsely accused of anything, your liberty is in the hands of idiots like this!
...Still, at least you are getting a trial. Detention without trial was one of NuLab's most sinister policies.
"having done jury service three times" "she claimed she did not know what she had done was wrong"
Rubbish, she knew full well what the rules are but chose to ignore them, possible to make her self look important to her mates. She should have been jailed, if only for a short period, a month would do. Trial by jury is an important part of our judicial system & should be treated with respect.
"Jurors are constantly reminded not to talk about the case with anyone.
"I thought my privacy settings would only keep it between my friends,"
Don't your friends count as 'anyone' ?
'Privacy' and 'Facebook' never go together lol
And Bez wants to appeal and be tried by a real judge and jury?
Don't you just love privacy settings. Case dismissed
What an absolute airhead.
I was reminded of Mark Twain when I read the above article. He wrote:
'The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago...I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated--every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."'
OK, he was talking about the US system but the sentiment rings true for the UK.
If you want a laugh, I would also recommend the wonderful episode of "Peep Show" in which Jeremy, serving on the jury, has a fling with the defendant!
I like Foll de-Roll's comment. I hold two conflicting views about trial by jury myself. I believe in trial by jury, yet at the same time, I would be terrified if I were on trial by twelve people composed largely of ignorant bigots who read the Daily Mail and believe all the hate-filled rubbish it spouts, believe "there's no smoke without fire", have no understanding of morals and ethics, hold racial prejudices, etc. A guy with my beliefs would be going down if ever he were on trial...thank goodness that judges can instruct a jury to return a certain finding based on facts rather than hearsay!
Thank Christ we don't televise trials as they happen, like they do in the States. I shudder at the thought...
Black flag - what a facilie remark, unlike some posters I am literate and articulate. My point - which you obviously didn't get is, thee calls to jury service age 29, no calls age 66. Irony Black Flag irony, the system obviously isn't random, with these odds she should buying lottery tickets.
Someone sobs (people can fake waterworks you know? A good number of actors can do it) and pretends she doesn't know what she's done wrong despite it being made clear before she did it that she wasn't allowed to, and she gets let off with a warning.
What a great way to encourage fair trials. Not.
lock her up
What an absolute joke this is, All people who serve as jurors should have some sort of test that they have to take in order to join 11 other people in helping to convict someone of a crime they may possibly not have commited or clearing some one of a crime they have.
this woman was extremely stupid to post things she shouldn't have on facebook & if I was a juror I would of locked her up for breach of the conditions i'm sure you should be signing before becoming a juror.