The trial of alleged drug mule Patrick Stamp was aborted yesterday after a jury member was seen fraternising with the accused?s family members outside Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Juror number seven, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was witnessed by Derika Gibbons talking with the defendant?s brother.

?I was waiting outside for people to come out,? Ms Gibbons told Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves in the Supreme Court.

?I saw the defendant?s mother on the grass. The jury came out. Juror number seven went right over to the mother and shook the brother?s hand. I saw him say something to her but I did not hear. He was smiling when he walked off.?

Section 525 of the Criminal Code Act 1907, states that after a jury has been sworn a juror can be discharged if they are deemed ?not indifferent as between the Crown and the accused person?.

Mr. Justice Greaves summoned Narcotics Detective Jamiko Tucker as the next witness in his inquiry. Det. Tucker said the juror was seen shaking the hand of Stamp?s brother in the presence of Stamp?s mother.

But juror number seven said he had no idea the people he spoke to were relations of the accused.

?The young gentleman is the nephew of a lady I went to work for on the North Shore. She asked me if I was still working at his auntie?s house. I said no, but I will be soon.?

Crown counsel Anthony Blackman said he was seriously concerned that the juror would not be able to concentrate on proceedings after being called up to see the judge. Both he and the Director of the DPP Vinette Graham-Allen thought the juror should be dismissed, he said.

Mr. Justice Greaves agreed and discharged juror number seven. He said a reasonable person could infer that he was biased towards Stamp.

Section 525 also states that a trial may continue with 11 jurors, but only if the Crown counsel and defence lawyer agree to it in writing.

?I do not want to put the defence on the spot,? Mr. Blackman said. ?But having taken instructions, I am not going to consent.?

But when the judge asked if Mr. Attridge if he would consent in writing he avoided the question.

?It sounds like the situation has been taken out of my hands,? Mr. Attridge said. ?Consent in writing is a moot point.?

Having no option but to abort the trial, Mr. Greaves furiously criticised section 525 which he said led to a total waste of the taxpayers? time and money.

The trial had been under way for a week and included expert testimony from T-shirt manufacturers in Honduras.

Said Mr. Greaves: ?One juror should not throw down a whole trial. This is the only jurisdiction in the Commonwealth where such a provision is still operating that if a juror has to be dismissed or is unavailable, the court cannot exercise its discretion to continue.?

He said too much power was placed in the hands of the defence and prosecution in determining how a trial would proceed.

?Unless this provision is remedied very soon, the backlog that we now see is going to be a mere drop in the ocean we shall have,? he said.

He said it was in the interest of justice to remove the clause and reexamine the mandatory number of 12 jurors.

?There is no magic about 12. If 12 why not 24? Why not nine? I am not happy about this,? he said. ?Let all those with ears hear, speed up and change the law or confirm that you want it like that and want to frustrate justice.?

No further action was taken against juror number seven.

Stamp?s bail was extended for the next arraignment?s session, when he will appear for a new trial date to be set.

After the trial was aborted, Mrs. Graham-Allen said prosecutors? concern was about the fair conduct of a trial ? not how much it cost.

She referred to Jonathan Smith, the Commissioner of Police to reveal the cost of importing the Honduran experts, but no response was given by Presstime yesterday.