Nemesis
03-25-2004, 06:45 PM
Jurors' visit threatens rape casehttp://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9080647%255E26462,00.html
The Daily Telegraph
By Cindy Wockner
March 26, 2004
A YOUNG gang rape victim faces the prospect of having to face her attackers at a new trial after revelations that two jurors defied a judge's orders and conducted their own experiment at the attack scene.
Two of the jurors sitting in judgment of brothers Bilal and Mohammed Skaf made an unsanctioned and highly improper night visit to the southwestern Sydney park where a 16-year-old was raped.
Their actions, revealed in the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal yesterday, have thrown the convictions of the brothers into doubt.
The court will next week hear new argument that the trial of the Skafs, who have been sentenced to 55 years' and 32 years' jail respectively for several rapes, was prejudiced because of the jurors' actions.
The 20-year-old woman is the second victim of the gang forced to relive her ordeal after one of her attackers was granted a new trial based on publicity surrounding other trials held immediately before his.
Prior to retiring to consider their verdict in July 2002, the 12-member Skaf jury was warned by Judge Michael Finnane to base their decision solely on the evidence they had heard within the courtroom.
It is a standard direction given to all jurors not to undertake their own inquiries and not to talk about the case to anyone except their fellow jurors.
But that night, two of the jury went to Gosling Park in Greenacre to view the park where the rape was said to have occurred and conduct an "experiment".
It has not been revealed exactly what kind of experiment they undertook but it is believed to relate to lighting in the park compared with the scene where the young woman was staked to the ground and raped, a gun also held at her head.
One of the issues raised by Bilal Skaf's defence during the trial related to the victim's identification of him.
Bilal Skaf has been sentenced to 55 years' jail for his role in three gang rapes of four young women in August 2000. His younger brother Mohammed was sentenced to 32 years' jail for the gang rape of two young women.
Both have appealed against their convictions and sentences on all matters and the court was due to hand down the conviction appeal decisions earlier this month when the jury problem came to light.
Yesterday, Justice Keith Mason said the Sheriff had provided a report into his investigation of the jury, which showed the jurors had conducted their own inquiry.
Lawyers for both brothers have since lodged new grounds for appeal against the conviction and it is widely believed in legal circles they could be granted a new trial.
The jury issue yesterday prompted the three appeal court judges to call on the Crown and defence to next week make submissions on whether changes should be made to the directions which judges presently give juries about private inquiries.
They also requested the parties look at whether jurors should be directed to tell the trial judge of "irregularities" of fellow jurors.
How it all went wrong
March 26, 2004
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9080665%255E26462,00.html
IT was 3pm on July 10, 2002, and the 12 jurors had been deliberating since 10.08 that morning.
Normally they would have continued their deliberations until 4pm, the usual court finishing time.
But at 3pm they sent a note to the trial judge, Michael Finnane, asking: "Can we please go home at 3pm?"
The judge called them in, telling the jury foreman he found their note a bit puzzling.
"If you haven't reached a decision that suggests to me that you need to keep deliberating. If you go home early how do you keep deliberating?" Judge Finnane said. He questioned the jury foreman as to whether there were any matters with which he could help them.
The foreman told the judge there was "a little bit of frustration" within the jury.
"You feel you might be able to come back to the task tomorrow with a clearer head, is that what you mean?" Judge Finnane said.
The foreman's response was simple: "Yes."
But what Judge Finnane and everybody else involved in the matter was completely oblivious to was that two of the jurors intended to use the evening - not relaxing and resting at home clearing their heads but lurking in the semi-darkness of a Greenacre Park, conducting an "experiment" or re-creation of the night of the rape.
It is not publicly known if the the two jurors, having satisfied their curiosity and answered some questions for themselves, came to court the next day and told their 10 fellow jurors about their nocturnal excursion.
It is also not publicly known if the entire jury had discussed the need to visit the crime scene and ascertain the amount of lighting present at the relevant time and that two people had been elected for the job.
But, having begun their deliberations next day at 10am, it took only 1 1/2 hours for the "frustration" of the previous day to dissipate and for a unanimous guilty verdict to be delivered - at 11.30am.
The Daily Telegraph
All they had to do was ask the judge
Comment by Cindy Wockner
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9080659%255E26462,00.html
March 26, 2004
AS the law stands, no criminal sanctions can be brought against jurors who ignore judicial directions.
Perhaps it is time for a think about this - sanctions or contempt charges for jurors who defy judges orders not to make inquiries outside the jury room.
Some will say sanctions would deter people from doing jury duty.
However if the sanctions were clear cut - and only for those who defy court orders - it would be a sufficient deterrent.
The two jurors who conducted their own excursion are guilty, at the very least, of gross stupidity.
Based on what we have heard so far, what they did was in clear defiance of the standard directions given to juries in every trial.
They are told not to conduct their own inquiries, talk to anyone outside the jury about the case or conduct their own research such as looking on the internet or in law books.
They have ample opportunity, if anything is unclear or they have difficulty understanding anything, to ask the judge a question.
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Telegraph
By Cindy Wockner
March 26, 2004
A YOUNG gang rape victim faces the prospect of having to face her attackers at a new trial after revelations that two jurors defied a judge's orders and conducted their own experiment at the attack scene.
Two of the jurors sitting in judgment of brothers Bilal and Mohammed Skaf made an unsanctioned and highly improper night visit to the southwestern Sydney park where a 16-year-old was raped.
Their actions, revealed in the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal yesterday, have thrown the convictions of the brothers into doubt.
The court will next week hear new argument that the trial of the Skafs, who have been sentenced to 55 years' and 32 years' jail respectively for several rapes, was prejudiced because of the jurors' actions.
The 20-year-old woman is the second victim of the gang forced to relive her ordeal after one of her attackers was granted a new trial based on publicity surrounding other trials held immediately before his.
Prior to retiring to consider their verdict in July 2002, the 12-member Skaf jury was warned by Judge Michael Finnane to base their decision solely on the evidence they had heard within the courtroom.
It is a standard direction given to all jurors not to undertake their own inquiries and not to talk about the case to anyone except their fellow jurors.
But that night, two of the jury went to Gosling Park in Greenacre to view the park where the rape was said to have occurred and conduct an "experiment".
It has not been revealed exactly what kind of experiment they undertook but it is believed to relate to lighting in the park compared with the scene where the young woman was staked to the ground and raped, a gun also held at her head.
One of the issues raised by Bilal Skaf's defence during the trial related to the victim's identification of him.
Bilal Skaf has been sentenced to 55 years' jail for his role in three gang rapes of four young women in August 2000. His younger brother Mohammed was sentenced to 32 years' jail for the gang rape of two young women.
Both have appealed against their convictions and sentences on all matters and the court was due to hand down the conviction appeal decisions earlier this month when the jury problem came to light.
Yesterday, Justice Keith Mason said the Sheriff had provided a report into his investigation of the jury, which showed the jurors had conducted their own inquiry.
Lawyers for both brothers have since lodged new grounds for appeal against the conviction and it is widely believed in legal circles they could be granted a new trial.
The jury issue yesterday prompted the three appeal court judges to call on the Crown and defence to next week make submissions on whether changes should be made to the directions which judges presently give juries about private inquiries.
They also requested the parties look at whether jurors should be directed to tell the trial judge of "irregularities" of fellow jurors.
How it all went wrong
March 26, 2004
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9080665%255E26462,00.html
IT was 3pm on July 10, 2002, and the 12 jurors had been deliberating since 10.08 that morning.
Normally they would have continued their deliberations until 4pm, the usual court finishing time.
But at 3pm they sent a note to the trial judge, Michael Finnane, asking: "Can we please go home at 3pm?"
The judge called them in, telling the jury foreman he found their note a bit puzzling.
"If you haven't reached a decision that suggests to me that you need to keep deliberating. If you go home early how do you keep deliberating?" Judge Finnane said. He questioned the jury foreman as to whether there were any matters with which he could help them.
The foreman told the judge there was "a little bit of frustration" within the jury.
"You feel you might be able to come back to the task tomorrow with a clearer head, is that what you mean?" Judge Finnane said.
The foreman's response was simple: "Yes."
But what Judge Finnane and everybody else involved in the matter was completely oblivious to was that two of the jurors intended to use the evening - not relaxing and resting at home clearing their heads but lurking in the semi-darkness of a Greenacre Park, conducting an "experiment" or re-creation of the night of the rape.
It is not publicly known if the the two jurors, having satisfied their curiosity and answered some questions for themselves, came to court the next day and told their 10 fellow jurors about their nocturnal excursion.
It is also not publicly known if the entire jury had discussed the need to visit the crime scene and ascertain the amount of lighting present at the relevant time and that two people had been elected for the job.
But, having begun their deliberations next day at 10am, it took only 1 1/2 hours for the "frustration" of the previous day to dissipate and for a unanimous guilty verdict to be delivered - at 11.30am.
The Daily Telegraph
All they had to do was ask the judge
Comment by Cindy Wockner
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9080659%255E26462,00.html
March 26, 2004
AS the law stands, no criminal sanctions can be brought against jurors who ignore judicial directions.
Perhaps it is time for a think about this - sanctions or contempt charges for jurors who defy judges orders not to make inquiries outside the jury room.
Some will say sanctions would deter people from doing jury duty.
However if the sanctions were clear cut - and only for those who defy court orders - it would be a sufficient deterrent.
The two jurors who conducted their own excursion are guilty, at the very least, of gross stupidity.
Based on what we have heard so far, what they did was in clear defiance of the standard directions given to juries in every trial.
They are told not to conduct their own inquiries, talk to anyone outside the jury about the case or conduct their own research such as looking on the internet or in law books.
They have ample opportunity, if anything is unclear or they have difficulty understanding anything, to ask the judge a question.
The Daily Telegraph