Karakaya, R v

A jury must decide a criminal case solely on the evidence and argument heard in court. A juror must not obtain private material capable of bearing on the issues, including by internet research, during the trial or after retirement. Such conduct undermines open justice and deprives the parties of a fair opportunity to address material considered in reaching the verdict.

The breach is a material irregularity. The decisive question under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 is whether the conviction remains safe. Where extraneous and tendentious internet material was introduced into the jury room after retirement, the convictions could not be regarded as safe.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Canterbury of indecent assault and rape of his 17-year-old daughter. The jury returned majority verdicts on those counts and was discharged from giving verdicts on two further rape counts.

After the jury had left court, the jury bailiff found internet material in the jury room. It had almost certainly been downloaded overnight by a juror after the jury had retired. The material concerned rape and the criminal justice system, included inaccurate and tendentious assertions, and was capable of influencing assessment of the complainant and the judge's directions.

The appeal concerned whether the introduction of that extraneous material rendered the convictions unsafe, notwithstanding that no inquiry had been made into how widely it had been seen or used by the jury.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed both convictions and ordered a new trial.

2. The established rule is that no fresh evidence should be given to a jury after it has retired. The rule applies to documentary as well as oral material. Its breach is a material irregularity, but does not invariably require a conviction to be quashed: the question under section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 is whether the conviction remains safe.

3. A juror's private internet research is subject to the same rule. Jurors may use their experience and knowledge of the world when evaluating the evidence, but they may not obtain information outside court which may bear on the case. Private research can influence a juror in the same impermissible way as an out-of-court discussion.

4. The prohibition protects two fundamental requirements of a fair criminal trial: the evidential material considered by the decision-maker must be open to the parties and the public; and both prosecution and defence must have a fair opportunity to address it. Material privately introduced into deliberations prevents those safeguards from operating.

5. The downloaded material went beyond a neutral reminder to assess a rape complainant fairly. It contained inaccurate and tendentious propositions which neither party could properly have advanced in evidence or address. Although the court did not need to investigate the handwritten note or jury deliberations, the material's presence and nature meant that it could not be satisfied that the convictions were safe.

6. The court added, without making an order on the point, that jury directions may usefully explain why jurors must not discuss the case outside their number or conduct their own research, including internet research.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial: [2005] EWCA Crim 346.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: Before HHJ Nash and a jury, convicted the appellant on 28 November 2003 of indecent assault and rape.