The trial judge had directed his jury at a criminal trial: ‘You will make your decision about this case based solely upon the evidence which you hear during this trial, in this courtroom and upon nothing else. Most of us these days have access to the internet, it contains lots of fascinating information, some of about the criminal justice system and some it about specific criminal offences. If you do have access to the ‘net, members of the jury, please do not go on the ‘net during this trial to explore any issues which may arise. That would be wrong. As I have said, you must base your decision in this case solely on what you hear in this courtroom and upon nothing else.’ Following acquittal verdicts in respect of one of the defendants at trial (Ms Sewart), and while the deliberations were continuing in respect of other defendants and charges, one of the jurors (Ms Fraill) contacted Ms Sewart on Facebook, a social networking site. They had a conversation over that site. Ms Fraill had also researched once of the defendants on the internet. Contempt of court proceedings were subsequently brought against Ms Fraill and Ms Sewart. Ms Fraill pleaded guilty to contempt of court.
Held: The court noted: ‘Fraill is, as she has admitted, guilty of contempt of court because as a juror she communicated with Sewart via the internet and conducted an online discussion about the case with her when the jury deliberations had not been completed and verdicts had not been returned. During the course of the discussion she provided Sewart with information about the state of the jury’s deliberations. This conduct contravened the provisions of section 8 of the 1981 Act . . and disobeyed the clear and unequivocal series of directions given by the trial judge prohibiting such conduct. She was also guilty of contempt of court for conducting research on the internet into the defendants in the criminal trial in which she was sitting as a juror for the purpose of obtaining further information of possible relevance to the issues at trial.’
As to sentencing, the court explained: ‘The starting point is simple. Misuse of the internet by a juror, or contravention of the contempt of court provisions in section 8(1) of the 1981 Act, is always a most serious irregularity and contempt. In the context of a two year maximum custodial period, a custodial sentence is virtually inevitable. The sentence is intended to ensure the continuing integrity of trial by jury.’ The court considered Ms Fraill’s conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly to be directly contrary to her oath as a juror and constituted a flagrant breach of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial. Noting, in mitigation, that she had assisted in the investigation into contempt and had pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, the court imposed an order for immediate custody for a period of eight months.
Judges:
Judge LCJ, Ousely, Holroyde JJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCh 1629 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Dallas v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Nov-2013
The applicant challenged her conviction for contempt of court in that whilst a juror, she researched the case before her on the internet, discovering that the defendant had faced an earlier allegation broadly similar. She now said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448500