HM Solicitor General v Stoddart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Brian Leveson P,Mr Justice Lewis |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1361 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: ATC17/0149 |
| Date | 04 May 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 1361 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Sir Brian Leveson
(President of the Queen's Bench Division)
and
Mr Justice Lewis
Case No: ATC17/0149
Louis Mably Q.C. on behalf of the Solicitor General
Joshua Normanton on behalf of the Respondent
(AS APPROVED)
The integrity of the criminal justice system requires all who participate within it to observe the highest standards of behaviour and so to ensure open, transparent and obvious compliance with all that due process requires. Should circumstances arise in which the public could no longer have confidence that the performance of any part of the system, our mechanisms for resolving the determination of guilt of those accused of crime will collapse. In relation to external investigations by jurors, whether on the internet or otherwise, the position was underlined by Lord Judge CJ in Fraill v Sewart [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 21; [2011] EWHC 1629 in these terms, at [28]:
"In every case the defendant and for that matter we add, the prosecution, is entitled as a matter of elementary justice not to be subject to a verdict reached on the basis of material or information known to the jury but which was not in evidence at the trial.
29. Judges, no less than anyone else, are well aware of and use modern technology in the course of their work. The internet is a modern means of communication. Modern technology, and means of communication, are advancing at an ever increasing speed. We are aware that reference to the internet is inculcated as a matter of habit into many members of the community, and no doubt that habit will grow. We must however be entirely unequivocal. We emphasise, even if we do so by way of repetition, that if jurors make their own inquiries into aspects of the trials with which they are concerned, the jury system as we know it, so precious to the administration of criminal justice in this country, will be seriously undermined, and what is more, the public confidence on which it depends will be shaken. The jury's deliberations, and ultimately their verdict, must be based – and exclusively based – on the evidence given in court, a principle which applies as much to communication with the internet as it does to discussions by members of the jury with individuals in and around, and sometimes outside the precincts of the court. The revolution in methods of communication cannot change these essential principles. The problem therefore is not the internet: the potential problems arise from the activities of jurors who disregard the long established principles which underpin the right of every citizen to a fair trial"
Breach of these requirements, therefore, is and must be taken very seriously. Thus, on 21 November 2016 Her Majesty's Solicitor General applied to the court for committal of a juror, Carl Stoddart, for contempt of court specifically for acting in breach of the requirement not to undertake personal research, thereby undermining the safety of a conviction in the case that he was called upon to try.
Mr Stoddart does not challenge the facts which form the basis of the application and concedes that his conduct amounts to contempt of court. Having regard to the importance of the case, however, it is appropriate to set out the facts in some detail.
Between 30 June and 10 July 2014, Mr Stoddart attended as a juror in the Crown Court at Newcastle-on-Tyne. At the commencement of his service, he watched a DVD which contained a specific warning to jurors against conducting internet research into the cases they were trying. It was in these terms, "You will also commit a criminal offence if you use the internet to research details about any cases you hear along with any other cases listed for trial."
In the jury assembly room, there were also displayed notices containing similar warnings and press reports relating to juror contempt cases. The notice reads in terms almost identical to that expressed on the DVD, "It is also a criminal offence to use the internet to research details about any cases you hear or any other cases listed for trial at the court during your jury service." The bold headline of the press report makes the position very clear, "Juror who did an internet search jailed for six months".
On 8 July Mr Stoddart was sworn as a juror in the case of Paul Quinn who was charged on an indictment with the offence of burglary. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the judge, Her Honour Judge Moreland, addressed the jury in these terms:
"You have sworn to try the case on the evidence. The evidence is what the parties, the prosecution and the defence, put before you in the courtroom, so please do not carry out research of any sort outside of court. These days, what that really means is do not carry out internet research about anything you hear about during the course of the trial. Of course it's tempting, as we all use the internet to find out information when they are new or unfamiliar situations, but you must not do that. First of all, because the information that you find out may not be accurate, but secondly, because the parties, the prosecution and the defence, won't know you've got that information and if they disagree with it and want to challenge it they cannot, and that would lead to unfairness, so no researches please about anything to do with this trial."
The trial was then conducted and the jury retired to to consider its verdict on the afternoon of 9 July. At 4.30 pm, the jury was sent home and resumed deliberations the following day when at 11.41 it returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. On 5 September 2014, a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was imposed on the defendant. It is important to note that evidence relating to the bad character of the defendant had not been adduced at the trial.
On 26 August, following the conviction but before sentence, it transpired that one of the jurors in the Quinn trial was undertaking work experience with a member of the Newcastle Bar and that juror explained to the barrister that, during his jury service, after the overnight adjournment, two jurors said that internet research had been conducted into that defendant's past and it was discovered that he had a criminal record. That fact was mentioned both to the barrister with whom he was working and another barrister.
With commendable propriety, the barrister ascertained who had prosecuted that case and reported what he had been told. The prosecuting counsel told the judge and defence counsel, as a result of which an application was made to appeal conviction to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. On reference to the full court, on 27 February 2015, an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission was directed. It was not of course known which juror had undertaken the research.
The CCRC conducted detailed enquiries and prepared a report which it dated 21 July 2015. It approached all 12 jurors and is summarised in this way:
"Juror A, who had reported the matter to the member of the Bar, stated that when the jury reconvened on 10 July, the respondent, Mr Stoddart, who was then known as juror B, made it known he had sought information about the defendant via an internet research he conducted overnight. He did not give specific information about the search. Juror A also stated that he believed another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Accident Exchange Ltd v Nathan John George Broom and Others
...he must be punished now by going straight away to prison." 27 The second case is the recent one of HM Solicitor General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361 (QB), of 4 May 2017. This concerned an application for committal of a juror who conducted internet research into the case he was trying. There ......
-
R v KK
...of subsequent cases, such as Aorney General v Fraill [2011] EWHC 1629(Admin); [2011] 2 Cr App R 21 and Solicitor General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361 (QB).74 In R v McDonnell [2010] EWCA Crim 2352; [2011] 1 Cr App R 28, the issue again wasunauthorised internet research by a juror. This was ......
-
Hksar v Lam Tsz-ho
...991; Dallas v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR 663; AG v Davey & AG v Beard [2014] 1 Cr App R 1; Her Majesty’s Solicitor General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361; Registrar of the Supreme Court of South Australia v S & C (2016) 125 SASR 207 and R v Bains 328 CCC (3d) 7. In my view, there is a valid......
-
Hksar v Lam Tsz Ho
...991; Dallas v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR 13; AG v Davey & AG v Beard [2014] 1 Cr App R 1; Her Majesty’s Solicitor General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361; Registrar of the Supreme Court of South Australia v S & C (2016) 125 SASR 207 and R v Bains 328 CCC (3d) [24] Chan Huandai, at [48] and [......