Furious judge throws out jury in perjury trial for top cop Michelle Stenner

A juror has been told to “have a good hard look at yourself” and the entire jury has been dismissed by a fuming judge presiding over the perjury trial of a top Queensland police officer. Here’s why.

The jury in the perjury trial of top cop Michelle Stenner has sensationally been thrown out after it was revealed a juror had improperly used his phone to research definitions of law.

Judge David Reid blasted the juror, telling him he should “leave this court with a sense of shame and a heavy heart”.

The furious judge said he could not have made his directions clearer to the jury about not consulting outside sources and the juror at fault should “have a good hard look at yourself”.

It comes after a six-day trial in the Brisbane District Court where Superintendent Stenner pleaded not guilty to three counts of perjury.

She was accused of knowingly misleading a Crime and Corruption Commission hearing which was investigating allegations of nepotism within the Gold Coast police after her boss’s daughter was given a temporary junior administrative position.

The jury began deliberations Tuesday afternoon and returned this morning to continue considering its verdict in each of the three charges.

Former police officer Michelle Stenner’s case has now been listed for a mention next week after the jury was dismissed. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

But a note was sent to the judge shortly after 11am today from 11 of 12 jurors expressing concerns about one member of the panel’s decision to consult his phone.

The jury foreman was asked to explain what had happened to the court.

“This morning we first began our discussion this juror had his phone in front of him and claimed to have had a revelation overnight about what the meaning of intention was according to the law and he subsequently read through what he felt constituted intention,” the foreman said.

“It included some of the material that you (the judge) had discussed with us. So the definition of knowingly, deliberately but he also introduced new material which he felt was guiding his thinking.

“And we asked him not to use the phone, please put that away, please turn that off but he kept referring to it.”

The foreman said all of the other 11 jurors agreed the conduct was inappropriate except the one man using his phone.

“The same person who felt that judges are sometimes wrong and he had a higher authority on some things,” the foreman said.

The jury was brought back into the court and Judge Reid told them he had laid out the “clear process” the panel was to follow.

“The difficulty is in doing what was done is that one cannot be satisfied that other directions might not be followed and the matters that might have been looked up on extraneous sources might be wider than other jurors know,” he said.

“I told you at the beginning of the trial of the serious consequences of such things.

“It’s unfair to other 11 members of the jury, it’s unfair to the defendant, to Mr Zillman, to Mr Fuller, to all of the people involved in the case….

“I can’t believe given how clear I made these directions that someone has quite deliberately gone and disobeyed.

“I think you need to have a good hard look at yourself and how you go about carrying out your civic duties.

“The palpable anger I feel is not directed to any of the other 11 and in fact you’re to be congratulated for putting in the note…

“The one juror…should leave this court with a sense of shame and a heavy heart.”

The case has been listed for a further mention late next week.