Attorney General v Dallas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,‘LADY JUSTICE HALLETT’ |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/10400/2011 |
| Date | 23 January 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 156 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(Lord Judge)
Lady Justice Hallett DBE
and
Mr Justice Openshaw
CO/10400/2011
Mr Dominic Grieve QC (the Attorney General) and Mr Louis Mably (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Charles Parry and Miss Amy Berry (instructed via Direct Access) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Monday 23 January 2012
1. This is an application by the Attorney General under Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court for the committal of Theodora Dallas (the defendant) for contempt of court. The alleged contempt arose during her service as a juror in the trial of Barry Medlock at Luton Crown Court in July 2010. It is alleged that she conducted internet research about the case and thereafter disclosed the results of that research to her fellow jurors.
Trial on indictment
2. These proceedings are brought under the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 52. This gives power to the High Court or the Court of Appeal to punish for contempt of court which may be exercised by an order of committal. Mr Charles Parry for the defendant invited us to consider whether the Rule was apt to deal with a contempt arising in the circumstances which obtain in this case. It was, he suggested, at least possible that, unless the Crown Court proceeded by way of a summary hearing, the appropriate process for examining the alleged contempt was by way of trial on indictment before the Crown Court. Mr Parry acknowledged that this method of proceeding was obsolescent, but suggested that nevertheless it was not beyond revival.
3. We examined the authorities. The last known occasion when an alleged contempt of court was tried on indictment was over 100 years ago in 1902 ( R v Tibbetts [1902] 1 KB 77). The indictment included a number of counts arising from publications which constituted contempt of court. They included an attempt to pervert the due course of law and justice and conspiracy to obstruct the due course of law and justice. Among other features of the case it was argued on behalf of the appellants that the publications constituted contempts of court and accordingly that they could not have been tried on indictment. Instead they should have been dealt with for contempt of court alone. The appeal was dismissed. The offences alleged against the appellants could be charged on indictment as misdemeanours.
4. Some 50 years later, in Attorney General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696, an application was made by the Attorney General for the committal of members of a trade union for contempt of court under the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Although suggesting that the process of trial of contempt on indictment could be revived, Pearson LJ recognised that such a process had fallen into disuse. In Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal against the decision of a trial judge that the appellant was guilty of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment. In his judgment Lawton LJ referred to the powers of the court to commit for contempt under Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and suggested that contempt could be dealt with in this way “or even by indictment”. This observation did not attract the support of Lord Denning MR or Stephenson LJ, who focused on the provisions in Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
5. The problem has been addressed twice in the House of Lords. In R v D [1984] 1 AC 778, the issue before the House of Lords was contempt of court in the context of a parent kidnapping his 2 year old daughter and falsely imprisoning her mother, together with allegations of contempt of court arising from the same material. In the Court of Appeal it was suggested that this “by now almost ancient way of proceeding” should not be resurrected. An appeal by the father against his convictions for kidnapping and contempt was allowed. The issue before the House of Lords was confined to the common law offence of kidnapping, and its proper ambit. The issue of contempt did not arise for consideration. Nothing in the judgment of Lord Brandon, with whom the other members of the House agreed, suggested that the observations of this court in relation to trials for contempt on indictment was inappropriate.
6. The issue was reconsidered in the House of Lords in In Re Lonrho plc [1990] 2 AC 154. After considering the ancient jurisdiction of the House of Lords to direct trial on indictment for breach of its privileges, and the contention that it was possible for the House of Lords to order that an alleged contempt should be tried on indictment in the Crown Court, Lord Keith, giving the reasons for the decision of the Appellate Committee, observed:
“…. because the first proposal to your Lordships was for prosecution on indictment, it is appropriate to take the opportunity, thereby endorsing the statement in Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 43rd Ed. (1988) volume 2, page 2449, paragraph 24–22 and approving the observations of the Court of Appeal in R v D [1984] AC 778, 791–792, of saying that, given the jurisdiction, the proper and convenient remedy in the case of alleged contempt of court by the media is by way of committal proceedings in the High Court. The last reported example of a prosecution of a newspaper for contempt was R v Tibbetts and Windust [1902] 1 KB 77 and this method of proceeding ought not to be revived.”
7. Contempt may take many forms. In the context of alleged contempt by or affecting a juror or jury in the Crown Court, in our judgment unless it is appropriate for the Crown Court to deal immediately with the contempt of its own motion (which in the light of many judicial warnings about the dangers inherent in a rushed process would be very exceptional), such cases of contempt should continue to be left to proceedings by the Attorney General under Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. It should now be clearly understood that trials for contempt of court on indictment are obsolete, and of historical interest only. Neither the Attorney General, nor the alleged contemnor, has any right to seek trial by jury on indictment.
The facts
8. Medlock was charged with two others with causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The allegation was that the three men had subjected the victim to torture over an extended period, which left him scarred for life and for which he is still undergoing major surgery. Medlock was not alleged to be the worst of the three offenders, but in particular it was alleged against him that he obtained boiling water which was used as a solvent for caustic soda. The soda was poured over the victim. At some point in the assault he also attacked the victim with a broom handle.
9. The defendant is a native of Greece. She is a woman without previous convictions and of positive good character. These considerations were fully in mind when we evaluated her evidence and whether it was likely that she would have deliberately disobeyed a court order. She came to England in 1996 when aged 19. She graduated at the University of Luton, as it then was, in 1999 with a degree in psychology. In 2001 she was awarded a Masters Degree in Health Psychology, and a year later she was invited to be a guest lecturer in psychology. She then began to study for a Doctorate of Philosophy in Health Psychology. In 2005 she was appointed a part-time lecturer. In 2008 this appointment became permanent and full-time. She was due to submit her doctoral thesis on 24 June 2011. There were a number of delays. In due course, however, after she had taken a viva voce examination she was successfully admitted to her degree. Throughout all these studies the language of her education, and her written and oral exams from her first degree to her most recent degree, was English. Her teaching and lecturing were also conducted in English.
10. From the evidence of events which occurred when the jury was in retirement she is plainly capable of communicating in English. Her subsequent police interviews underline her skill. In her evidence before us her grasp of the English language and her ability to communicate by comprehending what she was being asked and to respond appropriately was most impressive. Any suggestion that she might have been at a disadvantage during any part of her jury service would be without foundation.
11. When the defendant was first summoned for jury service, she questioned whether, as a non-British citizen, she was eligible for service. She was told that she was. She recollected that none of the written material sent to her made reference to the use of the internet. The trial of Medlock began on 4 July 2011. The defendant was one of the jurors summoned for jury service on that date. It was her first week of service. She told us that she was overwhelmed by the honour.
12. When the defendant arrived at the jury waiting room she was shown a video about the responsibilities of the jury and given verbal instructions by the jury officer of the court. The defendant recollects being shown the introductory video. She again remembers, correctly, that nothing said in the video, suggested that the use of the internet was prohibited. At court the jury officer, speaking after the showing of the video, expressly told the jury in waiting that they must not discuss the case or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Attorney General v Crosland (No. 2)
...be referred to a panel of Supreme Court Justices who must hold an oral hearing. Thirdly, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin); [2012] 1 WLR 991, trials on indictment for contempt are obsolete and cannot be sought by either the Attorney G......
-
HM Solicitor General v Stoddart
...on this occasion to one side, nothing we have seen undermines that description. 19 The approach to sentence is identified in Attorney-General v Dallas [2012] 1 WLR 991; [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin), which concerned a Greek woman of about 34 years of age who, at the time she undertook jury servi......
-
Ijeoma Nkem Egeneonu v Levi Egeneonu
...for contempt) notwithstanding the abolition in 1967 of the concept of misdemeanour and, more significant, the clear recognition in Attorney General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 991, para 7, that, as Lord Judge CJ said: "It should now be clearly understood that trials for ......
-
R v John Jordan
...that this would occur. The conduct that must be proved to establish contempt at common law was identified by Sir John Thomas P. in Attorney General v Davey [2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin), [2014] 1 Cr App R 1 at [2], drawing on earlier House of Lords authority: “an act or omission calculated to ......
-
A new look for the law of contempt in New Zealand?
...Solicitor-General v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB) (mobile phone camera being used in the courtroom); Attorney-General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin) (juror googling information about taking it into account during deliberations). 14The new offences will all be category 1 and 2 offences with no......
-
Table of Cases
...[2000] EWHC 302 (Admin), [2000] 1 WLR 1427, [2000] 2 All ER 425, [2000] 2 Cr App R 248 145–146, 148, 149 Attorney General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin), [2012] 1 Cr App R 32, [2012] 1 WLR 991, [2012] Crim LR 694 202, 203, 209–210 Attorney General v Davey, Attorney General v Beard [2013] ......
-
Contempt of Court, the Internet and Court Reporting
...in Attorney General v Davey, Attorney General v Beard [2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin), a case regarding 5 See Attorney General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin), [2012] 1 Cr App R 32. 6 See www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2013-part-62.pdf. alleged contempt of......
-
The Jury Is Being Killed by the Internet
...by the Criminal Procedure Rules pt 26.5.5. R v Kavakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 346, [2005] 2 Cr App R 5; Attorney-General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 Admin, [2012] 1WLR 991; Attorney-General v Fraill [2011] EWCA Crim 1570, [2011] 2 Cr App R 21.166 The Journal of Criminal Law ConclusionIn practical t......
-
Contempt in a click: how online media is challenging contempt law in Ireland and beyond
...the attention of the jury. 37 Nancy S Marder, ‘Jurors and Social Media: Is a Fair Trial Still Possible’ (2014) 67 SMU L REV 617, 629. 38 [2012] 1 WLR 991. 39 Akhtar (n 32) 9. 40 Chang Sup Park & Barbara K Kaye (2020) ‘What’s This? Incidental Exposure to News on Social Media, News-Finds-Me P......