The prosecution’s response was easy.

“The system worked as it was intended to work,” Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane KC said.

The jury was always supervised, and when a potential downside was recognized, steps were instantly taken to forestall it changing into an precise concern.

The jury keeper, the lead detective, and the prosecution all say there was no contact.

“The evidence in this case is that there was no interaction between any other person and the jury,” he said.

Other instances the defence pointed to in which jury errors resulted in retrials all had proof of precise contact, he famous.

“That’s not the situation here.”

Patterson has seven enchantment grounds – the others relating to rulings on proof and alleged unfairness by the prosecution – but this one, by the defence’s own admission, is unprecedented.

Just as necessary as precise interference is the notion of interference, said Edney, quoting the trial decide’s own speech as he chosen jury members on the very first day of the trial.

“Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.”

The trio of judges are now deliberating on Patterson’s enchantment, as effectively as an argument by the prosecution that her parole interval should be scrapped.

They will announce their choices at a later date.