The verdicts followed an eight-day defamation trial, before which the presiding judge directed the jury at length not to do any online research or talk to other people about it for the duration of the trial, so as not to taint their conclusion.
The juror went ahead and researched Stuff’s Code of Ethics outside of the trial and reported his findings back to the jury forewoman. This put him in contempt of court.
He told Justice Johnstone he’d thought about those actions since and was prepared to take “whatever the ramifications might be”.
When questioned about what happened the man said he recalled cross-examination taking place around an article being balanced, fair and accurate “and my brain went ding”.
“My brain knows something about this. I sat and thought about it and thought ‘this is about the Code of Ethics’.”
He couldn’t recall exactly when he’d first heard of the document but said it was likely in relation to reading earlier articles about the News of the World.
“I wrote out five bullet points. I’m pretty sure that’s right and then I started to wonder what the hell I was going to do with that.”
He thought he could either, not say anything, ask a question through the foreman, or ask to see the judge separately “because I thought I might be in trouble for introducing evidence”.
“I was really concerned. While I was thinking about all of this I fact-checked it, [by going online] ‘oh yeah I was right’. I didn’t think I would be breaking the rules.
“It was as automatic to me as putting my seatbelt on. I never thought about it at all.”
After mentioning it in the jury room, a fellow juror asked him how he knew that and he replied, “I looked it up”.
“I came in here and... thought you were going to tell me off for introducing evidence in.”
“It wasn’t mischievous, not in any way... I’m desperately unhappy with myself. It came out of my memory. I didn’t go hunting for it.”
Justice Johnstone told the man he appreciated his explanation but found he did undertake research on a matter relevant to the trial, so then he had to determine the size of a fine to hand down.
He had to balance the man’s circumstances and financial position against “the bigger picture of where jury members have been warned not to conduct their own research and need to ensure that the decision I reach assists justice rather than undermines justice and that includes doing justice to you”.
The judge said he also wanted to ensure that members of the public who respond to a jury summons were not left “disinclined to answer” due to the possibility of being subject to media attention.
When asked about suppression, the man said he would prefer not to be named and while he wouldn’t say he was ashamed, he admitted he was “bitterly disappointed” with himself.
Given the trial was able to continue with the 11 remaining jurors, and the man’s actions weren’t deliberately aimed to disrupt the trial, Justice Johnstone fined him $250.
Under the Contempt of Court Act, a person cannot be convicted but faces a fine of up to $5000.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for eight years and been a journalist for 19.
