The Post can now reveal the fiasco, after presiding judge Mr Justice Albert Wong Sung-hau lifted a reporting ban that had been in place for the past two weeks.

In Hong Kong, as in other parts of the world, jurors are placed in strict isolation until they have reached a verdict, to avoid them seeing or hearing anything to do with the case that could affect their judgment. That means staying in the court building itself.

On the third night of jury deliberation, a series of strange, muffled noises came from a male juror’s room, leaving two court employees mystified as well as worried.

Through the closed door, the pair heard joyful voices set against orchestra music normally found only at traditional Chinese weddings.

Although there were a few jurors inside the room, the voices did not seem to belong to them.

Being sequestered means no visits from family, friends or anyone else from the outside, as well as the confiscation of any electronic devices that can connect to the internet.

There was no television or radio allowed in the room, although there was a CD player connected to two speakers, with music provided. But the sounds did not appear to be coming from that either.

The employees reported the matter to Wong the next day.

The judge immediately summoned the prosecution and defence lawyers back to Court 5 of the High Court to discuss the issue, fully aware that whatever the jurors had seen, and the device they had in their possession, could lead to trouble.

The worst-case scenario would have been discharging all nine jurors, jeopardising a marathon trial that had spanned more than four months and was expected to cost tens of millions of dollars in legal fees.

But it was just a scare; it was later revealed the noises came from a wedding video one of the jurors showed to six others before they went to bed.

Three of them also watched the Hollywood war film Saving Private Ryan.

It would appear both films were watched using a banned device. The court has not revealed what that device was, whether it was subsequently confiscated, or whether anyone was punished for allowing it through the court’s strict security protocols.

After he received the two reports from the court employees that morning, Wong immediately summoned them to the witness box to elaborate on their written accounts, although their testimony only added mystery to the situation.

But at the end of their testimony, they were only able to tell the court that they could hear uttered words which they could not make sense of.

The stalemate left the lawyers and judge in a delicate situation. On one hand, it was important to know what the jurors were watching to rule out any potential threat to the trial.

On the other hand, asking about it could alarm them and create undesirable pressure which could also impact the verdict.

At about 6.30pm that day, eight hours after the incident came to the court’s notice, the judge and lawyers decided they should write to each juror and ask whether they had viewed any videos not provided by the court the previous evening.

Seven jurors replied that they had watched a wedding video shown by one of the jurors. Three said they saw Saving Private Ryan.

The judge reminded them they should hand over all electronic devices that could connect them to the outside word.

The jurors went on to acquit Leung, 27, and his co-defendants, technician Vincent Lam Ngo-hin, 23, and Lee Nok-man, 21, unemployed, of one count of rioting.

A third co-defendant, delivery man Yung Wai-ip, was found guilty of two counts of rioting and one of assaulting a police officer, although he was acquitted of two other counts of rioting and one of inciting an unlawful assembly. The jurors left an additional charge of taking part in an unlawful assembly undecided.