Jurors’ detection results in new trial

Press, 26 December 1984, Page 8

Jurors’ detection results in new trial

PA Wellington Detective work by jury members during a High Court drug case has resulted in the Court of Appeal’s ordering a new trial. Though the jurors had acted out of conscientious interest in the trial, there was no question that obtaining information relevant to the case from outside the courtroom had been misconduct, the Court has said. The court, comprising Mr Justice Woodhouse (presiding), Mr Justice Somers, and Mr Justice Eichelbaum, said it had been left in no doubt that the subject of the jury’s inquiries had been the central issue in the case. Mr Justice Eichelbaum said two Misuse of Drugs Act convictions against a housewife, Jennifer Maree Bates, aged 32, had been quashed and a retrial ordered.

Bates and two other persons had been charged with possession of heroin for supply. She was also charged with selling heroin in Auck-

land about February 19 last year. Bates maintained that the drug in the first count was a prescription drug called ephedrine, not heroin. Mr Justice Eichelbaum said this had been the crux of the defence and the point which led the trial judge to say there was virtually only one issue: the identity of the substance. The linchpin of the appeal and the only ground of appeal pursued related to the inquiries made by some members of the jury. A joint memorandum had been filed by counsel in relation to what happened. They had recorded that after the verdict counsel on both sides became aware through third parties of the possibility that some jurors had obtained information relevant to the trial on their own account. After inquiries, counsel were able to agree on the following facts for possible consideration by the Court of Appeal: • X, a juror, apparently went to a chemist’s shop

before the verdict, and found it was possible to buy ephedrine and found out the cost, then told fellow jurors. He had been a chemistry teacher and was aware that it could be purchased. • Other jurors learned of this from two of their number who had gone separately to chemists’ shops to find out the price and availability of ephedrine. One such juror indicated she thought this happened just after a police inspector had given evidence; another thought it was toward the end of the trial. Mr Justice Eichelbaum said questions as to the price and availability of ephedrine if sold legitimately were directly relevant to the only defence. Having regard to what Bates herself said on those topics, they also were matters going to her credibility. “There will have to be a new trial,” his Honour said. “We add that the outcome is in no way the fault of the judge whose care in handling a difficult hearing is evident throughout.”