Attorney General v Scotcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD STEYN,LORD HUTTON,LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY,BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND,LORD CARSWELL |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKHL 36 |
| Date | 19 May 2005 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[2005] UKHL 36
HOUSE OF LORDS
The Appellate Committee comprised:
Lord Steyn
Lord Hutton
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
(Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I agree with it. I would also dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I agree with it and for the reasons which he gives I would also dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("section 8), which provides:
"(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, 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 a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings."
The Facts
In January 2000 the appellant, Keith Scotcher, was summoned for jury service at Blackfriars Crown Court. Like all the other potential jurors, Mr Scotcher was given a booklet entitled "You and Your Jury Service", which he read. Just below the list of Contents the booklet said this:
"Warnings are in grey boxes.
You will find them on pages 1, 2 and 10.
Please read them carefully."
Page 1 included this warning:
"Warning
When you become a juror you must never discuss the case with anyone who is not a member of the jury. Talk about the case only in the jury room when all the jury are present."
There was another warning on page 10:
"Warning
You must not talk about the case outside the jury room.
You must not show or tell anyone details of:
statements made opinions given arguments put forward votes cast by you or any other juror during the jury's deliberations.
If you do, you will be in contempt of court and you may be sent to prison or have to pay a fine."
On the first day of their service the jurors were also shown a video, part of which said:
"It is a contempt of court, which may be punishable by imprisonment, to get or disclose the opinions of jurors or the way they voted in their deliberations."
It went on to say:
"Please remember that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for anyone to disclose information about what is discussed in the jury room or the opinions of individual jury members about a case."
There was a notice to the same effect in the jury room.
The appellant was balloted to serve as a juror in a trial in which the two defendants were brothers. By the end of the trial on Friday 11 February, the jury had been reduced to eleven members. That afternoon the jury convicted both defendants by a majority of 10 votes to 1.
The following day, the appellant wrote to the defendants' mother in these terms:
" Dear Mrs Anderson
I was the one jury member who held out against the prosecution case at the trial of [A] and [B]. I would like you to seriously consider, as I'm sure you are already, talking to your counsels about appealing the convictions on the grounds of an unsafe conviction, miscarriage of justice, or whatever. [XXXX]
When we first went out the voting was close XXXX. Many changed their vote late on simply because they wanted to get out of the courtroom and go homek. I was shocked at how readily some of them were ready to convict on a complete lack of evidence, and I tried to show them how the evidence there was, [A]'s jacket, [B]'s suit, the phone book could so easily have been 'fitted' into '[D]'s' statement - given after these items were taken from your house. It was never explained why policeman took these items.
The police searched the house 3 days after the incident. How did they know what items to take? They didn't find any drugs or anything associated with drug dealing. But, they took these items which they thought would be 'useful', as they were, when it came to concocting a 'statement' from [E]. This statement was not written down nor recorded. We only had the policeman's 'word' - evidence for it (all the jury thought he was 'dodgy'). Then, lo and behold, [A] and [B] were said to be wearing those very clothes the police just happened to take! Phone numbers from the book were said to have been known by [D]/[E]. In the 'statement' he got close, some numbers wrong, but in Court he was further away on [B]'s number. He had plenty of time to try and memorise them anyway, but how could he ever make a successful call? Of course there were other things that decided me they should not be found guilty. [F]? said in her statement that the jacket was GREEN! The only other mention of green was in [A]'s statement when policeman mistakenly said it was green! Indicating she was shown the statement. As well as her belatedly saying she knew of [A] and [B], who [E] said he knew as [G] and [H]. (said before couldn't recognise etc).
I tried to show the Jury that this was how people were fitted up, and that there was not enough evidence to convict anybody. I'm sorry I did not succeed and I wish you XX success in your further efforts.
Yours sincerely - ANON
XXXX
I was a shop steward XXXX for 18 years and know how people get framed for things.
Some more thoughts on the case [E] was clearly lying about the phone call he made to [B]. He says he keeps the number [B's] in his head. But got it wrong in first statement, and even more wrong in witness box - so how could he make the call at all? DC (1) should have been asked if he is paranormal - knew what to take from [C] house before [E] statement. Why these items and not any others? Does it happen often in DC (1)'s cases, that he picks up the 'right' evidence before he even knows about it? What was he looking for in the search? Some of the jury thought the judge wasn't just summing up the case but indicating he wanted them found guilty. Some of the jury said they were ready to believe they were guilty despite almost complete lack of evidence. The 'leader' of this pack was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX saying they are drug dealers, etc, and should be locked away. There was no proof of this. Only [E] said this.
I tried to argue strongly that our duty X was first to presume innocence until proven guilty. Despite the fact that I was prepared to go through all the 'evidence' present and show how it was a false case, when I challenged the others to prove the guilt case - none of them even tried! The just decide on prejudice and hearsay. (and wanting to get home for tea!). I hope these are grounds in law to show that the verdict was unsafe. Don't know if it can be shown that the Judge misdirected the jury.
good luck!
Its a terrible thing to say, but it now looks if it would have been better not to go before a jury. A judge could not have decided on the complete lack of evidence. This is hindsight of course. My opinion was that the Judge should have directed us to find not guilty due to lack of evidence (and clearly false evidence).
Please do not show this letter to: - police/judge/pros Counsel."
At the beginning of the letter the writer explained: "I've blocked out some words because apparently I'm 'in contempt of court' for writing to you." In the letter as reproduced above the words blocked out in this way have been marked by capital Xs and initials have been substituted for names.
Mrs Anderson sought advice about the letter from her solicitor who brought it to the attention of the Court of Appeal. The court in turn contacted the police, who then interviewed 11 of the original 12 jurors, including the appellant. All of them denied writing the letter. Handwriting samples were taken from the jurors and a handwriting expert examined the letter. The expert discovered that one piece of obliterated writing was the appellant's email address, while two other pieces of obliterated writing said "Keith S". On comparing the letter with the handwriting samples, the expert concluded that the appellant had written it. The appellant was then arrested and interviewed under caution. Despite the evidence of the expert, the admitted similarity between his writing and that in the letter and the similarities between some of the contents of the letter and his own personal history as a trade union official, the appellant continued to deny being the author.
The material assembled by the police was referred to the Attorney General for him to consider, in terms of section 8(3) of the 1981 Act, whether to give his consent to proceedings for contempt of court being instituted against the appellant in terms of section 8(1). On 25 March 2002 the appellant's solicitors wrote to the Attorney General admitting that he had written the letter but arguing that no proceedings should be taken against him. On 16 July 2002 the Attorney General informed the appellant that he had given his consent to proceedings being instituted.
On 23 October 2002 the Divisional Court granted the Attorney General permission to apply for a committal order against the appellant. When the matter came before the court again on 8 May 2003, the court decided to hear argument on whether a defence was available to a juror who disclosed the deliberations of the jury if the juror was motivated by a desire to expose a miscarriage of justice.
On 16 May 2003 the Divisional Court (Scott Baker LJ and Pitchford J) held that no such defence was available: [2003] EWHC 1380 Admin. The appellant then accepted that he had committed a contempt of court in terms of section 8(1). The Divisional Court ordered that the appellant should serve a two-month prison sentence suspended for one year and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mrs M Newby and Others and Mr M Paskin and others v HM Revenue and Customs and Others: 2400627/2020 and Others (See Schedule)
...to be of valid authority. The Tribunal would be referred to the following cases: R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 36, [2006] 1 AC 173; MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [2008] ICR Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions & Ordnance) Ltd [2008......
-
Petition No. Of 2008 By The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
...into (R v Mirza, per Lord Slynn of Hadley at para 51 and cf Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough at para 142; Attorney General v Scotcher [2005] 1 WLR 1867). The scope of the common law confidentiality should be the same as the scope of the statutory restriction on investigating deliberations viz. ......
-
Mrs M Newby and Others and Mr M Paskin and others v HM Revenue and Customs and Others: 2400627/2020 and Others (See Schedule)
...to be of valid authority. The Tribunal would be referred to the following cases: R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 36, [2006] 1 AC 173; MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [2008] ICR Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions & Ordnance) Ltd [2008......
-
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission
...570 at 595. 158 (2013) 87 ALJR 858 at 893 [161]; 298 ALR 570 at 613. 159 R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118 at 1153 [85], 1155 [90]; Attorney General v Scotcher [2005] 1 WLR 1867 at 1877 [25]; [2005] 3 All ER 1 at 13. See also R v Young [1995] QB 324; R v Smith [2003] EWCA Crim 3847 at 160 (......
-
Reverse Burden and Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights: Drunk in Charge; Terrorism Offence
...also Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza[2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 3 WLR 113).Ben FitzpatrickJuries: Secrecy of DeliberationsAttorney-General v Scotcher [2005] UKHL 36, [2005] 1 WLR 1867The defendant served as a juror in the trial of two brothers who wereconvicted by a majority of 10 votes to one. The foll......
-
The Criminal Jury in England and Scotland: The Confidentiality Principle and the Investigation of Impropriety
...Jury Impropriety (2005) CP 04/05(hereafter referred to as the DCA paper) 12–14. 16 See the recent case of Attorney-General v Scotcher [2005] UKHL 36, [2005] 1 WLR 1867. For an argument that the 1981 Act ought to be amended to allow an exemption for jurors in Mr Scotcher’s position,see N. Ha......
-
Trial by Jury: Still a Lamp in the Dark?
...[2005] UKHL 12, [2005] 1 WLR 704, (2005) 69 JCL397. The House of Lords applied the rule in Attorney-General vScotcher [2005] UKHL36, [2005] 1 WLR 1867. Finally the Court of Appeal referred to it in R vMomodouand Another [2005] EWCA Crim 177, [2005] 2 All ER is given in the presence of all t......
-
Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety
...v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177, [2005] 2 All ER 571; R v Karakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 346, [2005] 2 Cr App R 5; Attorney-General v Scotcher [2005] UKHL 36, [2005] 1 WLR 1867. 8 Department for Constitutional Affairs, Jury Research and Impropriety: A Consultation Paper to Assess Options for Allo......