Facebook contempt trial begins tomorrow

13 June 2011 by

Tomorrow sees the beginning of a contempt of court prosecution against a juror who allegedly communicated on the social networking site Facebook with a defendant who had already been acquitted.

The co-editor of this blog, Angus McCullough QC, is representing the Attorney General in the case; he is not the writer of this post. Isabel McArdle has already posted on the case – for background, see Silence please: A Facebook contempt of court – allegedly.

Deliberations of a jury must remain confidential. Section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides,

… it is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.

For more on contempt, including tips for avoiding it when blogging or tweeting about ongoing trials, see my post Avoiding contempt of court: tips for bloggers and tweeters.

As Isabel wrote in her post, Joanne Fraill was a member of a jury in a large and complex drugs case. She is alleged to have used Facebook to contact a person who had already been acquitted in the trial, while the jury was still considering verdicts in relation to the other defendants. She is also accused of having used the internet to do research relating to the trial. The acquitted defendant, Jamie Sewart, is also facing contempt proceedings, being accused of soliciting information from Ms Fraill about the jury’s deliberations while it was still considering verdicts in relation to some defendants.

The case has been generating some interesting commentary. The Times have apparently found over 40 examples of jurors posting messages on Facebook which could lead to contempt proceedings, and even found one user posting an online poll to assess the outcome of the case.
Christopher Kinch QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association told the newspaper that the situation is a “potential time-bomb” for the jury system, and “Left unchecked, we could move towards trial by X-factor-type online polling; or jurors might find themselves put under pressure by correspondents online.”

According to The Telegraph, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge is expected to issue “tough new” guidelines on internet use by jurors. That sounds sensible to protect the trial system, but also from the jurors’ perspective it is important that the rules are clear and unambiguous. That said, some jurors may still choose to ignore them. After all, the judge in this case gave a warning not to use the internet to research the trial.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

3 comments


  1. Lee says:

    I’m appalled that this juror has been jailed for merely exercising her basic human rights of freedom of expression and association.

  2. ObiterJ says:

    Further to the comment by MTPT – there is no doubt at all that jurors have discussed cases with their “nearest and dearest” and this has gone on since time immemorial. Generally, it makes no difference to the case because it goes no further.

    The allegation against Friell is that she, whilst being a juror, contacted a defendant in the case. No matter how that is done it is wrong.

    I am assuming that this “trial” is before the Queen’s Bench Division and that the Lord Chief Justice will sit with another judge? If those assumptions are right then I would have a serious concern,

    The present LCJ has expressed quite stern views about this subject in speeches It would, in my respectful view, be preferable if he did not try this case. The LCJ is no longer President of the QBD and, at this stage, the matter should be left to the judiciary of that Division. Of course, in taking this view, I may be ploughing a lone furrow.

  3. The elephant in the room – which I suspect the Court will be in no hurry to acknowledge, let alone confront – is that the use of Facebook to discuss jury deliberations differs from “bar room conversation” only in the availability of a (semi-)permanent record.

    This case is being treated by the press as being about the medium used, not the alleged messages between juror and defendant. I fear it will be similarly treated by a court largely ignorant of how that medium – social networks – is actually used by the public.

    There are plenty examples of previous cases where jurors disclosed in breach of the CoCA, and were punished for it. See, as one example which sticks in my mind, the Keith Scotcher case: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd050519/scot-1.htm I see no great clamour for jurors to be denied access to mail services.

    IMV, the inability, or unwillingness, of the (senior) judiciary to appreciate that social networks are generally used as an analogue of conversation (and not – as the law wishes to insist – as an analogue of publishing and distributing fliers) damaged the reputation of the Courts (and the LCJ!) in the recent privacy incidents.

    Christopher Kinch’s comments start from the same assumptions. Why should “pressure from correspondents online” be any greater than pressure from friends and relatives? Does Kinch believe that prior to Facebook no juror ever discussed a case with their spouse, their children, their parents, or their friends?

    Hopefully, the LCJ’s guidelines will avoid the trap of assuming it is the medium that is the problem, rather than the message, but his recent behaviour does not fill me with confidence.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: