Juror jailed for collapsing Cardiff murder trial

A juror who collapsed a murder trial after doing his own research on the internet has been jailed for four months, a court heard.

Paul Richards, 65, had been selected to be a juror in a multi-handed trial at Cardiff Crown Court relating to the murder of Daniel Rae.

Newport Crown Court heard Richards had sworn an oath, and the jury had been given directions by the trial judge, not to carry out their own research into the case.

About a week into the trial Richards, while in the jury room, was overheard by an usher telling other jurors about joint enterprise murder.

Seized

The high court judge trying the case was informed and Richards’ phone was seized for examination, and he admitted he had found a newspaper article from the Guardian newspaper on the topic.

As a result the jury was discharged and a new jury selected, who later found Kieran Carter guilty of murder. Two other people received suspended sentences for offences in connection with the case.

Richards, of Pentrebane Drive, St Fagans, Cardiff, had previously pleaded guilty to being a juror conducting unauthorised research and of being a juror disclosing prohibited information to other jury members.

Ruth Smith, defending, said Richards had taken his jury service “very seriously” and struggled with some of the legal concepts in the case.

“He doesn’t resile from the fact he was given firm information about not researching matters and was aware of his public duty as part of that jury panel,” she said.

“In the circumstances he felt out of his comfort zone and struggled to understand the concept of joint enterprise, and because he took his oath so seriously, he should have spoken up.

“It is a very sad set of circumstances that sees a 65-year-old man before the court who has previously led an exemplary life.

“He has been a hardworking man who has taken pride in his work and position in the community.

“He is deeply ashamed of his behaviour.”

‘Flagrant disobedience’

Imposing a four-month jail term, Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clarke described Richards’ actions as a “flagrant disobedience of the court’s directions”.

“This was a case where you deliberately and knowingly disobeyed a direction of the court and your culpability therefore is high,” the judge said.

“You are a man of good character, not just in the sense that you have no previous convictions, but those who write references for you speak very highly of you.

“It’s quite clear that you are genuinely remorseful for your conduct. It is fair to say that having read the references you are the embodiment of the phrase, an upright upstanding citizen.

“I think you don’t need me to tell you what a foolish decision that was.

“Had the usher not inadvertently happened upon you, it may be that this would never have come to light, and the verdicts of the jury of which you were a member could have been returned on the basis of a misunderstanding of the law on joint enterprise, or other improper considerations.

“I accept you were not motivated by malice, and that the responsibility of being a juror, particularly in such a serious case, weighed heavily upon you.

“But that is often the experience of those who serve on a jury, and the court does not underestimate that burden.

“But there are very good reasons why people are told not to undertake their own research.

“One of those reasons is that the judge is the only person authorised to explain the correct law that you must apply in the trial, and here there was a risk that you and other members of the jury could have been swayed away from the proper application of the law on joint enterprise by the opinions of a journalist, or of your own opinions.”