Juror felt bullied before unanimous guilty verdict delivered against Nazih Farha
A juror who suffered extreme bullying by fellow jurors for having a different view was forced to call a counselling helpline just hours into deliberations, it can be revealed.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A juror who suffered extreme bullying by fellow jurors called a counselling helpline just hours into deliberations.
In a rare insight into jury deliberations, the man said he was bullied because he had a different view from his fellow jurors who wanted to find a man guilty.
The juror wrote to a County Court judge complaining of “considerable stress and anxiety” and saying he felt uncomfortable about continuing deliberations.
PUSH FOR ONE-PUNCH LAWS FOR SURGEON’S KILLER
‘TERRIFIED’: SHOCK AS RYE SCHOOLIES CLASH WITH RIOT COPS
After being brought before the judge and asked whether he could withstand “robust” discussions in the jury room, he eventually agreed to continue, and the next morning the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.
The case was revealed in an appeal by the guilty man who used the juror’s experience as a ground for his failed appeal, arguing it indicated a “substantial miscarriage of justice”.
Nazih Farha was accused of slashing two men in the face with a Stanley knife and detonating a firecracker into a third victim’s leg in 2015.
In a lengthy note written to the judge, the unnamed juror said he had “reasonable doubt in his mind” the accused man was at the scene of the crime.
“Jury members think there is enough evidence to place him at the scene.
“I feel like I am going out on a very lonely limb,” he wrote.
The court heard the juror was too uncomfortable to return to the jury room for fear he might be bullied.
The judge told the juror the process of deliberation was “not always an easy one”.
“People do have different views and they have strong opinions … there can be a build-up of disagreement to the point … (of) hostility.
“It’s a robust process where people get frustrated,” the judge said.
The note detailing his concerns was not handed to either legal team and was instead paraphrased by the judge, who chose not to reveal the details of the juror’s concerns regarding evidence.
“I want to keep that confidential … at this stage, it’s between you and me.”
Lawyers for Farha launched an appeal, arguing the contents of the note were not adequately revealed at trial.
The appeal was denied.
Farha was sentenced to seven years’ jail but will be eligible for parole in five.