The jailing of Joanne Fraill for eight months after she pleaded guilty to contempt of court having contacted a defendant on Facebook, causing a multimillion-pound drugs trial to collapse is a powerful reminder to journalists of the dangers of contact with jurors.
By all accounts Joanne Fraill was not evil or malicious but simply foolish and infatuated. Perhaps a bit like the female juror who once sent some champagne to the chambers of the prosecution counsel (but at least this was after the trial) she seems to have become overly interested in one of the defendants – a pretty young mother whose life experiences perhaps mirrored her own. But she was made an example of because she not only exchanged Facebook messages with Jamie Stewart, 34, the female defendant already acquitted in the multimillion-pound drug trial in Manchester in 2010 but she also admitted (she had no choice as scrutiny of her computer revealed all) conducting an internet search into Stewart's boyfriend, Gary Knox, a co-defendant, whilst she and the other jury members were still deliberating their verdicts.
Jamie Stewart escaped jail only because she had already served time whilst on remand. Her two month sentence was suspended for two years because of a concern that she would be unable to bond with her child having already had the relationship interfered with by time in the slammer.
Like every juror Fraill had taken an oath to reach a decision based upon the evidence presented to the court and judges nowadays remind jurors not to conduct searches and there had even been orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial.
Jurors are increasingly contacting journalists to disclose concerns they may feel regarding the working of the criminal justice system. This can be hugely beneficial but reporters must be aware that the offence is committed not on publication but if one asks for, or is given, information on jury deliberations. Fraill had been asked by the defendant Stewart "what's happenin with the other charge??" to which Fraill responded "can't get anyone to go either no one budging pleeeeese don't say anything cause Jamie they could all miss trial and I could get 4cked to". Slam-dunk jury deliberations. The only road from that leads to jail.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981, the relevant legislation, is pretty brutal when it comes to protecting the confidentiality of a jury's deliberations. It is 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. So this does not just cover juries in criminal trials but would apply to defamation actions and inquests.
So if a juror contacts a reporter wanting to talk about a trial they should be warned immediately to take legal advice so that they do not themselves commit the offence of disclosing details of deliberations. They are allowed to talk about a trial if they so wish – after the verdict has been given – but must never stray into what was discussed in the jury room
Notes from the jury to the judge would not be a problem if read out by the judge in open court as they frequently are.
Judges may tell jurors not to do searches online about defendants but in the real world there is little to stop jurors taking the law into their own hands. One would hope that few do it, and that if they do the other jurors would shop them to the judge (as it is such a vital principle that no defendant should be convicted simply because he already had a bad reputation but only because the prosecution had been able to prove that he/she committed the offence. But the courts are going to have to grapple in the future with the availability of information (including, even more worryingly misinformation) about defendants and even witnesses or even the personalities or propensities of the judge or counsel! But that is for the future, for now it is simply worth remembering that contact with a juror remains a freedom of expression free zone
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
