legal

Jury foreman sentenced over internet research



A foreman of a jury who carried out internet research that led to the conviction of a defendant has been given a suspended prison sentence. Timothy Chapman, 62, caused other members of the split jury at Huntingdon Crown Court to change their mind after using a search engine to ask the question: ’How hard is it to break bones?’

Prosecutor Hugh Vass told St Albans Crown court last week that the juror failed to heed a warning by Judge (Caroline) Wigin about carrying out internet research. He said: ’Mr Chapman was the foreman of the jury at Huntingdon crown court. The case involved a punch that caused a broken cheek bone.

‘The jury were sent out to deliberate on Thursday 28 January 2021.  At the close of business the jury were evenly spilt 5 to 7. They were sent home. That night he used a search engine and asked: “How hard is it to break bones?”

’The jury returned the next day and were still split. The defendant told the jury that he had worked with crash test dummies and the impact would have to be very forceful. He did not mention he used a search engine. He said he had looked over notes from work.

’Some jurors changed their mind. One challenged him, but a unanimous guilty verdict was returned.’ 

In May last year a member of the jury complained and Chapman was arrested. He told the police when he went home he said he used a tablet to search the internet.

Vass said Chapman gave no explanation as to why he did not send a note to the judge via an usher. He said he believed he was doing the right thing.

The Huntingdon conviction was quashed and there is to be a retrial at “considerable cost” to the tax payer, said the prosecutor.

Chapman pleaded guilty to carrying out research and sharing research while a juror. Defending, Mark Shelley of criminal defence firm Mark Shelley and Co said ‘This is a desperately sad case. He is a 62-year-old man who has never been in trouble. He had never done anything stupid like this before.

‘It’s not at the top end of juror problems – he did not contact anybody. He thought he was trying to help. He has worked with crash test dummies and wanted to be sure in his own mind despite the warnings from the judge.’

Judge Richard Foster told Chapman: ‘Members of jury were swayed by your input from your internet research. The quashing of the conviction caused a significant public cost and witnesses will have to go through it all again.’

The judge said normally an immediate custodial sentence is imposed, but he was able to suspend the sentence because of the strong mitigation. He passed an eight-month sentence suspended for 12 months, pay £1,000 costs and a £500 fine.

 

 

 



READ SOURCE

Leave a Reply

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.