Newspaper faces double contempt charges

It must be something of a record for a newspaper to be accused twice in one day of being in contempt of court. But that, in effect, is what happened to The Times today.

The first case involved a story published in December 2007, anonymously reporting comments made by two jurors who had expressed the view that a childminder had been wrongly convicted of manslaughter.

Two judges gave Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, permission to bring contempt of court proceedings against Times Newspapers Ltd and the jury foreman, Mike Seckerson.

Lord Justice Maurice Kay said: “We don't think this is the very gravest case of jury indiscretion. Nevertheless we grant permission.”

Lady Scotland's counsel, Philip Havers QC, had told the High Court that the article “breaches the absolute rule against disclosing the essential secrets of the jury room”.

He said it had revealed the voting intentions of jury members and disclosed their reasoning.

Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it 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”.

In the second case, Mr Justice Ouseley referred an article published in The Times last Saturday to Lady Scotland “for her urgent and serious consideration”.

The judge had presided over a murder trial at the Old Bailey that was was held partly in secret. On Friday, Wang Yam, a Chinese conman, was convicted of murdering Allan Chappelow, a reclusive author, in an attempt to steal from his bank accounts.

During the trial, Mr Justice Ouseley had made a number of orders under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, which allows a court to ban publication of evidence withheld from the public.

After Yam was convicted, the judge said that “speculation as to what was said in camera would be regarded as a significant attempted contempt of court”.

Today, Mr Justice Ouseley added that “repetition of the Times article, in any publication of this statement, may equally therefore be a contempt of court”.

He explained that the orders, made to protect national security and the administration of justice, would continue in force. “The Court of Appeal confirmed that without such orders no trial of Wang Yam for the murder of Allan Chappelow would have been possible.”

It will be for Lady Scotland to decide whether to bring proceedings against The Times over the report last week. The newspaper and its legal editor Frances Gibb — whose by-line appeared on both articles — are expected to contest the allegations vigorously.

Posted at January 20, 2009 11:45 PM