Factors of juror inappropriate conductIn relation to this issue, research was carried out by the UCL Jury Project, as part of the 2010 Are Juries Fair study ? Research has shown that such problems arise because a small minority of jurors do not follow the rules regarding juror Internet use. Most jurors felt they needed more information about how they should conduct their deliberations, and many jurors are unsure or don't know what to do if something inappropriate happens during the trial. Some factors in juror misconduct have occurred: jurors not understanding that they should not seek information on the Internet or elsewhere about the case they are hearing about during trial; jurors are unaware that they should not find such information and share it with other jurors; and even though the other jurors know that this behavior is wrong, they do not know what to do to ensure that the verdict they return will be fair. Why would the jury choose to use the Internet during deliberation when they are told they are not allowed to do so? Jurors definitely believe they are doing their best to do their job by doing their own research. Sometimes they don't understand the meaning of terms or information about jury service, so they search the Internet to clear their doubts. Sometimes the juror has no basic knowledge of the particular case they are hearing, so they discuss it with their friends to make sure their decision is the right one. Research carried out among Crown Court juries in 2012-13 showed that almost three quarters of jurors understand the contempt rule regarding how the internet can and cannot be used when taking part in a trial, while almost a quarter of jurors are clearly confused about the rule regarding...... middle of paper... ...the accused will be convicted or acquitted, not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of undisputed and untested evidence discovered by the juror. » Another example is R v Karakaya, after the jury reached its verdict, some documents downloaded from the Internet were discovered by the jury bailiff in the retreat room. The appellant appealed his conviction on the grounds that the introduction of foreign elements into the jury room, once the jury had begun deliberating, constituted an irregularity. The Court of Appeal ruled that downloading documents from the Internet violated the fundamental rule that no evidence should be presented after the jury had left. Not only did these documents impact the decisions, but they also could have undermined the jury's confidence in the fairness of the summary and the accuracy of the judge's legal instructions. Therefore, the belief