According to the case study undertaken, the offenses were identified to be committed under the Jurors Act 1967 (ACT). The offense was identified to be breaching of the confidentiality of the jury deliberations and the identities with the Personation of the Jurors. It had been identified in the two part of the case study undertaken for the study. In the first part of the case study, the confidentiality of the information is identified to be made by Sam with disclosing all the legal disclosures publicly by tweeting the incident of the bribery. It has been made by Sam to gain publicity and get the dignity in the profession of his job (Maseres, 2008). However, he did not realize that he was breaching the confidentiality of the jury deliberations which come under the Juror Act 1967(ACT). In the second part of the case, the involvement of Sally in the case of Bird trial is identified by Sam. Nevertheless, by gathering the information about this case, Sam wrote an email to The Canberra Tribune for the publishing of this matter. Due to this reason, the suppression is seen in the judge who issued the prevention order to upraising the crook. This jury was identified as a mistrial, and also the jury was dismissed as per the court orders were carried out. Thus, Sam is identified to be responsible for committing an offence by considering the Personation of the Jurors which come under the Juror Act 1967 (ACT). These are the two applications which are provided in this case with showing that the responses are identified to be against the Juror Act 1967 (ACT) with breaching the sections provided in the justification of this answer. This is identified to be showing the breaching of the Act as it had been proved to be showing the appropriate judgment to this case and the investigation must be made against Sam for the conduct undertaken with going beyond his duties of being a journalist (Bakshi, 2012).