” There is a need to discourage independent research outside the evidence at trial.However, was the fact that one high profile trial had to be re-heard, sufficient justification for new criminal sanctions against jurors?- Another member of the gang rape had his sperm frozen at no expense so he could have a family after being released from goal (he was diagnosed with cancer and the treatment would leave him sterile).
Another victim was raped at gunpoint by two males at Gosling Park, Greenacre, having been lured there by one of the rapists, who was an acquaintance.
She escaped before she could be raped by another twelve males waiting their turn.
When Bilal Skaf’s conviction was set aside by the Court of Criminal Appeal (R v Skaf  NSWCCA) the court called for change to penalise recalcitrant jurors, which was approved.
However, no real consideration was given to how effective the penalty provisions might be.
On 20 December 2001 the applicant was found guilty on all counts.
Between 29 April 2002 and 7 June 2002 there was a second trial, again by judge and jury, in which the applicant stood trial charged with offences of detain for advantage, aggravated indecent assault in company, aggravated act of indecency in company, three counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (in company) and two counts of perverting the course of justice.Because the judges decided that a retrial was appropriate in this situation, it showed not only that the judgement was fair, but was also free from bias to any side.This demonstrated the effective operation of the justice system.The legal system has no idea whether the deterrent effect of penalties will prevent independent research, or merely make it harder to discover when it has occurred.During the course of this trial, the question was raised: “Do we really need to punish members of the public who take their role as jurors too seriously?Glanville Williams once commented on the significance of “reforms” that flow from sex cases, which have attracted the prurient interest of the press and general public.“These are notoriously the occasions on which the law tends to be bent to give expression to feelings of moral outrage” (Glanville Williams Criminal Law 3rd Edition p.182).As a final humiliation they hosed her down with water. His Honour erred in finding the applicant had attempted to anally penetrate the complainant Miss C as the jury could not agree whether or not he was guilty of anally sexually assaulting Miss C and the applicant was not charged with or convicted of attempted sexual assault.Between 19 November 2001 and 20 December 2001 the applicant stood trial before his Honour Judge Finnane QC and a jury, charged with two counts of detain for advantage, nine counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (in company), and two counts of assault.the public uproar caused by the gang rapes led to the passage of new legislation through the Parliament of New South Wales, dramatically increasing the sentences for gang rapists by creating a new category of crime known as Aggravated Sexual Assault In Company., failing which, could have led to the contentious prospect of the defendants being able to cross examine the witnesses themselves.The situation was averted by further legislation being put through the New South Wales parliament.