Contempt of court - Criminal contempt - Defendant being a juror sitting on M’s trial

Attorney General v Dallas: QBD (Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Lady Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Openshaw): 23 January 2012

In July 2011, the defendant, D, was summoned for jury service and placed on a jury for a trial.

D was made aware on a number of occasions that she should not, inter alia, research on the internet the defendant, M, or anyone else involved in the trial. During the trial the jury was informed, in limited terms, of a previous conviction that M had. D then conducted a search on the internet. Her case was that she had searched only in general terms of the offence for which M had a previous conviction and that she had stumbled upon an article concerning M’s previous conviction.

At the end of the trial, the jury retired to consider its verdict. During the jury’s discussions, D revealed the details of M’s previous conviction that she had found on the internet. Another juror informed the usher and the matter was referred to the judge. The jury was discharged and M was later retried. D denied that she had deliberately flouted any instructions or directions regarding misuse of the internet. The attorney general brought proceedings under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 52, for the committal of D for contempt of court. The application would be allowed.

There was no doubt that D had known perfectly well: (i) that the judge had directed her, in unequivocal terms, that she should not seek information about the case from the internet; (ii) that she had appreciated that that had been an order; and (iii) that she had deliberately disobeyed that order. She had sought to arm and had armed herself with information of possible relevance to the trial which, although it had not been adduced in evidence, might have played its part in her verdict. She had further prejudiced the administration of justice by disclosing that information to her fellow jurors. D’s contempt was proved to the criminal standard. D would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, three months to be served in custody and three months to be served on licence.

Dominic Grieve QC and Louis Mably for the attorney general; Charles Parry and Amy Berry (instructed by Direct Access) for the defendant.