period, nor at the beginning or end of the day. As a result jurors may intentionally, or simply by habit, seek out or communicate information about the trial. Use and misuse of social media Between 2018 and 2020, the Tasmania Law Reform Institute conducted an inquiry into juror misuse of the internet and social media during trials. The institute concluded there is likely to be a high, but unquantiýable and undetectable, level of misuse. However, there is evidence across Australian jurisdictions that jurors have used their internet-connected devices to: • research legal terms or concepts or other information relevant to the trial. A West Australian juror in a drug-related trial obtained information online about methamphetamine production • research the accused, witnesses, victims, lawyers or the judge. Two South Australian jurors sitting in a blackmail trial against multiple defendants conducted online searches about the accused, which disclosed past outlaw motorcycle gang afýliations • communicate with people involved in the trial. Multiple New South Wales jurors on a long-running fraud trial became Facebook friends, sharing posts such as a digitally altered photo of one of the jurors wearing a judge’s wig. . . . Misuse is under-reported. In those few instances where reports are made, fellow jurors, rather than court ofýcers, tend to be the ones who raise the issue. Indeed, it is an important part of their role. . . . Educate, inform and encourage self-regulation The law reform institute ultimately concluded it is impossible for, and beyond the capacity of, courts to completely police juror internet use. It has thus recommended not reforming the law, but rather strengthening and standardising juror education and directions. These recommendations are divided across two stages of jury selection, as part of an overall strategy: • pre-selection: prospective jurors should receive improved training and information about the role of the juror and the risks of internet use • post-selection: once a jury has been selected, judges need to explain to jurors what dangers arise from using the internet to access and publish on social media, seeking information about the case, parties, court ofýcers, lawyers and self-conducted research into legal concepts or sentences. The report has recommended the court adopt minimum standard directions, but also have the þexibility to make speciýc directions relevant to any particular trial. The report recommended certain current practices and laws should remain unchanged, including: • removing phones from jurors while they are in court (even though the effect is limited, it avoids juror distraction) • leaving contempt (punishment) laws in place for those jurors who intentionally ignore court training and directions. That might include monetary ýnes and, in severe cases, imprisonment. This process is aimed at encouraging self-regulation among jurors, by educating them how to curtail their internet use and why it’s so important. Source: The Conversation Media Group Ltd. Jemma Holt and Brendan Gogarty. ‘Juries need to be told how they’re allowed to use the internet to ensure fair trials’. 22 January 2020. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/juries-need-to-be-toldhow-theyre-allowed-to-use-the-internet-to-ensure-fair-trials- 130127 [Online Resources].
Step 3 — Planning with TEEL The following paragraph ( FIGURE3 ) has been written using the TEEL structure. It has been colour coded to make it easier to see TEEL in action ( T opic, E xplanation, E vidence, L ink).
Jacaranda Humanities Alive 7 Victorian Curriculum Third Edition
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator