[1] Misconduct can take several forms: "An inclination of temperament or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgement"[2] An example mentioned in Eltis's article "Courts, Litigants and the Digital Age.
She was found to be tweeting to her friends and asking them to poll whether they thought that the man being tried was guilty or not; whether he committed the rape or not.
[4] The juror did learn that lying was in fact a "symptom"; however, she chose to gather this information during the discussion to find a verdict.
It has been found in many cases, jurors who have searched for words unfamiliar to them, done extensive research, "engaged in at-home experiments, visited accident scenes, and otherwise obtained specialized knowledge".
[11] This source of information refers to using the Internet to perform their own form of investigation on the side without actually having to go to the physical scene of the crime.
[12] When certain individuals are called to be on jury duty, they are told they are not allowed to communicate with other people who are not involved with the case, and they are told they are not allowed to use the Internet to research anything or to send out or receive any information that would compromise the integrity and fairness of the case at hand.
[18] If the possibility presents itself, according to Eltis’s article, simply dismissing the misconduct as unacceptable would be less destructive than a mistrial.
[19] Under the common law, jurors could be charged with contempt of court if they were found to have carried out independent research into the case they were trying.
Proving that a juror was guilty of a contempt required proof that he/she had acted contrary to a judicial order (e.g. to refrain from carrying out research online).
As Crosby explains:The Act makes it an offence for jurors to ‘research the case during the trial period’, to ‘disclose [improper] information to another member of the jury during the trial period’, and to engage in ‘conduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that the [juror] intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issue’.
[21]Former jurors found guilty of one of the new offences will be disqualified from jury service for ten years, even if they have been fined rather than imprisoned.