Revealed: more secrets of the jury room

The High Court is expected to decide on Friday what penalty to impose on the publishers of The Times for disclosing how jurors in a manslaughter trial reached their verdict.

Times Newspapers Ltd and Michael Seckerson, the jury foreman, were found to have been in contempt of court. Mr Seckerson had contacted the newspaper to express his doubts over the conviction of Keran Henderson, a childminder found guilty of the manslaughter of Maeve Sheppard, aged 11 months, in 2007.

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”.

But that is exactly those dishonourable members down at the House of Commons did on the very day that The Times was found guilty. In evidence published on-line, MPs disclosed opinions expressed by jurors in a libel trial.

The case was brought against News Group Newspapers, publishers of The Sun, by a former EastEnders actor called Mohammed George. George, 26, who played a road sweeper in the television series for more than five years, complained that the newspaper had falsely accused him of beating up his girlfriend in the street and running away. In April, the jury ruled in his favour and awarded him £75,000 damages.

Giving evidence to the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on May 5, Tom Crone, legal manager of News Group Newspapers, said he thought his newspaper had “pretty well satisfied” the burden of proving that its allegations against Mr George had been true.

“But the jury went away and came back the next day and gave him £75,000,” said Mr Crone, “and it cost us £1 million”.

It’s what Mr Crone said next that matters. “Someone — and perhaps I should not be saying this — bumped into a jury member in the pub not long afterwards.” The jury member had explained, in a sentence, why the claimant had been awarded his damages. Mr Crone then told the MPs.

Did this breach the Contempt of Court Act? I believe not: Mr Crone enjoyed absolute privilege in giving evidence to the House of Commons. So, of course, did the committee when it transmitted Mr Crone’s remarks in a live webcast on the internet and transcribed them on its website.

Can I lawfully report what he said? I enjoyed qualified privilege from libel if I publish a fair and accurate report of Parliamentary proceedings. But I don’t think that will get me off a contempt of court charge.

Let me try a compromise. Click here for Mr Crone’s “uncorrected evidence” and scroll down to Question 816. You will find what the juror said towards the end of his answer. It’s interesting, if depressing.

Have I now disclosed opinions expressed in a jury room? I don’t think so. For one thing, I don’t know if the man in the pub was telling the truth. For another, I have not disclosed anything myself. I merely told you where to look.

If the Attorney General thinks I’m wrong on this, I’ll gladly remove the link from this page to the committee’s page. But, in that event, it would be more sensible for Lady Scotland to ask the committee to remove the sentence in question from its website. I can’t see that happening, though.

Back to the Times contempt ruling. It’s worth looking at the full judgment for two amusing vignettes.

First, counsel for Times Newspapers relied on a letter written in 1982 by the then Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers QC, advising the Sunday Times what questions it could lawfully ask a juror. Lord Justice Pill cast doubt on Sir Michael’s advice, saying that the answers to some of the questions posed by the Attorney General could have amounted to contempt of court.

That must have made uncomfortable listening for counsel to the present Attorney General, who brought the proceedings. He is Philip Havers QC, Sir Michael’s son.

The other vignette comes from a statement under caution made to the police by Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times. She disclosed that she had “failed to arouse the interest of the news desk” in Mr Seckerson’s initial approach to the newspaper. It was only when a second juror spoke to the BBC about the case a couple of weeks later that she decided to take up the story again, two jurors being more newsworthy than one.

Even then, “publication was held up for a few days for lack of space”.

But Ms Gibb got her story published in the end. Her persistence is admirable — but I wonder if she now regrets it.

Posted at May 18, 2009 12:22 AM