Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | Jane Creaton |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.2005.78.2.159 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
JANE CREATON
Legal Correspondent
Email: jane.creaton@port.ac.uk
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Disclosure of Juror Deliberations
Attorney-General v Scotcher [2005] UKHL 36
House of Lords
19 May 2005
Contempt of court; Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 8(1);
disclosure of juror deliberations; European Convention on
Human Rights 1950, art. 10; whether a juror disclosing
juror deliberations with intention of exposing an alleged
miscarriage of justice in contempt of court
This was an appeal against a conviction under the Contempt of
The facts
The appellant served as a juror in the trial of two defendants who
were brothers. Both defendants were convicted by a 10–1
majority verdict, the jury having been reduced to 11. The next
day the appellant wrote an anonymous letter to the defendants’
mother disclosing some of the jury’s deliberations, alleging a
miscarriage of justice and suggesting that an appeal against
conviction should be made. Following a police investigation,
proceedings were instituted in the Divisional Court. The court
heard arguments on whether the desire to expose a miscarriage
of justice was a defence available to a juror who disclosed the
deliberations of the jury, and it held that no such defence was
available. The appellant then admitted contempt of court and was
ordered to serve a two-month prison sentence suspended for one
year and to pay costs of £2,500.
The appeal
Both parties accepted that the appellant had revealed opinions,
arguments or votes of members of the jury in the course of their
deliberations (the actus reus of s. 8) and that he had deliberately
disclosed these deliberations to the defendants’ mother (the mens
rea of s. 8). He was therefore guilty of contempt of court unless
a defence was available.
The Police Journal, Volume 78 (2005) 159
Counsel for the appellant argued that in order to be compat-
ible with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, s. 8(1) of the
Contempt of Court Act 1981 had to be interpreted to include
such a defence. He also argued that the appellant has demon-
strated an indirect intention to disclose the matter to the Court of
Appeal by writing to the defendants’ mother with the intention
that the defendants’ lawyers present an appeal. Following the
case of R v Mirza [2004] UKHL 2, it was permissible for these
matters to be raised by a juror to enable the court to investigate
them.
HELD
The court accepted that the right to freedom of expression under
Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights was
engaged, but that under ECHR, Article 10(2) this right may be
subject to ‘such formalities, conditions, restriction or penalties as
are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society
. . . for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence’.
On the second ground, it was indeed the case that, at the time
that the Divisional Court had heard the arguments, it had been
assumed that Contempt of Court Act 1981, s. 8(1) was an abso-
lute prohibition on enquiring into juror deliberations. However,
in R v Mirza the House of Lords held that the section did not
does not apply to the trial court or to the Appeal Court. These
courts are responsible for ensuring that the defendant has a fair
trial and must therefore be entitled to enquire into any irregu-
larities that are drawn to their attention. Furthermore, it would be
an absurdity if a court could be considered to be in contempt of
itself.
The House of Lords therefore accepted the argument that a
person who disclosed jurors’ deliberations to the court with the
intention of averting a potential miscarriage of justice would not
be guilty of contempt of court. This could be done directly or
indirectly through a lawyer, an officer of the court or even by
asking a Citizens Advice Bureau or another organisation to pass
on written confidential concerns to the legal authorities. How-
ever, in this case, the appellant had disclosed the jurors’ delibera-
tions to someone who might or might not have passed on the
contents of the letter to the court, and in fact the letter written to
the defendants’ mother had expressly asked her not to show it
to the police or prosecuting counsel.
160 The Police Journal, Volume 78 (2005)
To continue reading
Request your trial