The prosecution’s response was simple.

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

The jury was constantly supervised, and when a potential problem was identified, steps were immediately taken to prevent it becoming an actual issue.

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 cases the defence pointed to in which jury errors resulted in retrials all had evidence of actual contact, he noted.

“That’s not the situation here.”

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

Just as important as actual interference is the perception of interference, said Edney, quoting the trial judge’s own speech as he selected 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 appeal, as well as an argument by the prosecution that her parole period should be scrapped.

They will announce their decisions at a later date.