NSW Chief Justice Warns: Social Media Poses Threat to the Integrity of Juries

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

New South Wales Chief Justice Andrew Bell has raised concerns about the impact of social media and internet access on jury trials, warning that the integrity of juries could be compromised.

Speaking at a recent event organised by the Centre for Independent Studies, Bell said the prevalence of social media and information tools, such as Google, posed a risk to the integrity of the fact-finding process in jury trials.

“Modern jurors, having their mobile phones and other devices, access to a vast volume of information which is not in evidence in a case, and which may or may not be accurate, but which, notwithstanding judicial directions not to do so,” he said.

“They will be tempted to draw upon [this] to discharge their responsibility as jurors.”

The chief justice also noted that this was a problem that increasingly undermined the role of jurors, who are tasked with determining the facts in most criminal cases.

A notable example of this conern occured in the sexual assault trials of Brittany Higgins, where a jury was discharged in October 2022 due to misconduct.

During the trial process, one of the jurors was found to have possessed research materials on sexual assault that was outside of the evidence provided to the jury.

This prompted the court to dismiss the jury as it believed the material could affect the fairness of the trial.

To tackle this issue of unapproved information, Bell said legislative changes that penalised jurors for their wrongful conduct have been made.

“A recent amendment to the ACT Juries Act has created a criminal offence for a juror to make an inquiry, including by conducting internet research for purposes of any manner relating to the trial in which the juror is participating,” he said.

Decline of Trust in the Judicial System

Bell also discussed a broader issue—the declining trust in the judicial system among the public, which poses serious risks to the credibility of legal institutions.

He pointed to the U.S. as an example, where millions of citizens believe that the 2020 presidential election was rigged or stolen, despite many courts rejecting the claims.

“A significant percentage of the U.S. population is either ignorant of the rulings of multiple courts of high standing or simply do not accept such rulings as factually accurate or reflective of the truth,” Bell said.

“Neither explanation is comforting. The latter explanation is particularly disconcerting to a sitting judge, albeit in a distant jurisdiction and with a different tradition of the official appointment, because it connotes a lack of respect for the work of the courts in reaching conclusions based upon the evidence for in those cases.”

The chief justice then noted that any decline in trust in and respect for the decisions of judicial institutions was a profound concern when the courts were viewed as “sources of factual information.”

A voter casts her ballot in the Democrat presidential primary election at a polling place on Super Tuesday in Herndon, Va., on March 3, 2020. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Regarding the situation in Australia, Bell said there was mixed evidence about public trust in the country’s court system.

Specifically, he said a survey by the Australian Law Reform Commission showed that in 2020, trust in Australian courts had increased over the previous 10 years and was higher than trust in federal parliament, business, and the media, second only to university research centres.

However, a survey by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in July 2024 indicated that among 1,600 respondents, only 30 percent had faith in the court and judicial system, while 47 percent expressed distrust.

The remaining 23 percent were either undecided or neutral on the issue.

“There may be a variety of reasons for the erosion of trust in the courts if that survey is correct, and they may be irrespective of a more general trend of so-called truth decay in our society,” Bell said.

Courts and COVID-19 Measures

As the event progressed, a member of the audience raised the issue that the public lost a “great deal” of trust in the courts as they allowed state governments to infringe on people’s fundamental freedoms with their COVID policies.

In response, Bell said he understood people’s views about whether the temporary COVID-19 measures implemented by state governments were justifiable.

He added that the courts took the view that the measures were not unlawful.

“We give our honest, genuine view of it. We’re analysing it legally,” Bell said.

“That was a question about power—whether there was power to make temporary regulations, which required vaccinations or various measures, which restricted liberty, but there was a trade-off involved which we held was lawful.

“That’s just the reality of the situation, but I fully respect that not everyone would necessarily accept that decision, and people’s views philosophically don’t always accord with the legal position we expressed based on our understanding of the law and the extent of governmental power.”