McDonnell, R. v

A juror’s private internet research is an irregularity, but it does not automatically require the jury’s discharge or make a conviction unsafe. The court must investigate the material and assess whether there is a real basis for thinking that it may have caused the jury to decide the case otherwise than on the evidence.

The assessment should address the material’s content and prejudicial potential, the breach of directions, possible further research, the risk of repetition, and the adequacy of any judicial warning. A clear direction to disregard external material may cure the irregularity where the material is immaterial or its potential prejudice is slight.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Wood Green of possessing controlled drugs and a CS gas canister. His defence was that he did not know that the items were in his home.

During deliberations, the jury obtained internet material about boric acid, Phenacetin and sentencing, and two jurors made separate enquiries about “denial as a defence” and creatine monohydrate. The trial judge refused to discharge the jury and directed it to disregard all external material.

The appellant appealed against conviction. The central issue was whether the jurors’ unauthorised research created a real possibility that the verdicts had been improperly influenced and were therefore unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe despite the jury’s unauthorised internet research.

2. The court applied the approach in R v Thompson [2010] EWCA Crim 1623. A court confronted with extraneous material must investigate it and determine whether there is reason to think that the jury may have reached its decision otherwise than on the evidence. Private internet research contrary to directions is troubling, but it is not itself a sufficient reason to discharge the jury.

3. The inquiry required consideration of five connected matters: the material itself; the breach of the judge’s directions; possible further material; the risk of repeated research; and the steps taken to cure the position. The court must consider both logical relevance and the possibility of prejudice from material that lacks probative value.

4. The boric-acid material was irrelevant and without prejudicial potential. The news article’s reference to Phenacetin as a cocaine cutting agent was potentially adverse, but its likely effect was slight in context. The small quantity found did not suggest retail drug dealing, and the disputed issue was knowledge of the drugs’ presence, rather than supply. The sentencing brochure and the unshared enquiries gave no real basis for concluding that the jury had been prejudiced.

5. The judge’s firm general direction to put external information out of mind was sufficient. There was no firm basis, rather than speculation, for believing that the jury had acquired prejudicial information or would disregard the warning and repeat the conduct.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 6 October 2009, the appellant was convicted of possessing controlled drugs and a prohibited weapon. The jury was discharged from returning a verdict on the count alleging possession of cannabis resin with intent to supply.