Times contempt challenge thrown out in Strasbourg

8 February 2012 by

Michael Alexander SECKERSON and TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED against the UK Applications nos. 32844/10 and 33510/10 – Read decision / press release

The European Court of Human Rights has rejected as “inadmissible” Times Newspaper’s challenge to its 2009 conviction for contempt of court. The decision, which was made by seven judges, is a good example of an early stage “strike-out” by the Court which is nonetheless a substantial, reasoned decision (see our posts on the “UK loses 3 out of 4 cases at the court” controversy).

It has been a bad 24 hours for The Times, with its editor being recalled to the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics yesterday to answer questions about the hacking of a police blogger’s email account to reveal his secret identity, and subsequent disclosure (and lack thereof) to the High Court. Ultimately, James Harding appeared to blame the Times’ now-departed in-house lawyer as well as “legal privilege” – see Professor Richard Moorhead’s excellent post on the ethical issues surrounding this.

Returning to 2007, Mr Seckerson, the other applicant to the European Court, sat on a jury in 2007 involving the conviction of a childminder for killing a baby by violently shaking it. He was interviewed by The Times, which published the following quotes: “…the consensus was taken three minutes after the foreman was voted in. It was 10-2 against, all based on the evidence. After that, there was not going back” and “Ultimately the case was decided by laymen and laywomen using that despicable enemy of correct and logical thinking, that wonderfully persuasive device, common sense”.

The following summary is taken from the Court’s press release:

Following interviews by the police and an application by the Attorney General, the two applicants were found guilty of contempt of court under section 8 (1) of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, which prevents certain details of jury deliberations being disclosed or published. They were fined and Times Newspaper company was ordered to pay costs of over 27,000 GBP.

The judge emphasised the need to keep secret the deliberations of juries, given that jurors’ confidence to express views depended on their knowledge that the views would not be revealed outside the jury room.

Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained that the finding of contempt of court, the fines imposed and costs ordered were incompatible with their right to freedom of expression.


The Court recalled that freedom of expression was one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that in that context the safeguards guaranteed to the press were particularly important. However, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of expression to the press, even with respect to press coverage of matters on serious public concern.

The Court emphasised that rules imposing requirements of confidentiality of judicial deliberations played an important role in maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, by promoting free and frank discussion by those who were required to decide the issues which arose. It was therefore essential that jurors be free to air their views and opinions on all aspects of the case and the evidence before them, without censoring themselves for fear of their general views or specific comments being disclosed to, and criticised in, the press.

It reiterated its previous finding in the case of Gregory v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, § 44, that the rule governing the secrecy of jury deliberations was a crucial and legitimate characteristic of English trial law which served to reinforce the jury’s role as the ultimate arbiter of fact and to guarantee open and frank deliberations among jurors. It concluded that even an absolute rule could not be viewed as unreasonable, given that any qualification would necessarily lead to an element of doubt which could undermine the very objective which the rule sought to secure.

As to whether the disclosures by the applicants in the case offended against the secrecy of the jury deliberations, the Court first observed that it was not being asked to examine the rule in circumstances involving a conviction for research into jury methods or in a case where the interests of justice could be said to require the disclosure of the jury’s deliberations.

It noted that the published comments had revealed the opinions of the majority 10 jurors in the childminder’s case at an early stage of a long deliberation, had revealed Mr Seckerson’s assessment of their opinions and statements and had disclosed their approach to the evidence in the case. The Court was satisfied that these disclosures had breached the secrecy of jury deliberations.

Consequently, the UK courts’ finding the applicants guilty of contempt of court, the imposition of the fines on both applicants, and the award of costs against the second applicant had been proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and necessary within the meaning of the Convention.

The Court decided to join the applications and declared them inadmissible.

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

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. It is nearly 20 years since the press stopped funding real investigative journalists and they now rely on information supplied to them from totally biased sources such as the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services.

    This has led to our once free press being demoted in some circumstances to being an arm of police propaganda.

    The rule of the Judiciary is vital to redress this balance and it is hoped the Leveson Inquiry in its next module will go deeply into the culture which has grown up since the sad demise of real investigative journalism

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: