Facebook Contempt Juror Jailed For Eight Months

Guill

What a tit...

When social networking could cost you your freedom you know that it's not worth it.

The first juror to be prosecuted for contempt of court for using the internet has been jailed for eight months, after her online activities led to a retrial in a multi-million pound drugs case.

Mother-of-three Joanne Fraill, who admitted at London's High Court to using Facebook to communicate with a defendant in a drug trial, was distraught when sentenced.

The 40-year-old, who also has three stepchildren, used the social networking website to swap messages with Jamie Sewart, in the third of four trials.

During the case at Manchester Crown Court, estimated to have cost £6 million, Fraill contacted Sewart, who was found to be no guilty of conspiracy to supply drugs charge.

Fraill wrote to Sewart, who had asked about an outstanding charge: "cant get anywaone to go either no one budging pleeeeeese dont say anyhting cause jamie they could call mmiss trial and i will get 4cked to0".

The next day, Sewart informed her solicitor about the conversation - a move that triggered the contempt of court action.

8 months is a bit much though

Fraill, from Blackley, Manchester, also confessed to conducting an internet search about Sewart's boyfriend, Gary Knox, a co-defendant, while the jury was deliberating.

The 34-year-old Sewart was handed a two-month sentence suspended for two years for her involvement, after also being found guilty of contempt.

When told by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, the length of her sentence, Fraill cried "eight months!" before putting her head on a table and sobbing uncontrollably.

The judge announced a short adjournment "for everyone to calm down" following the collapse of Fraill, whose daughter went into labour before the sentencing.

Sentencing Fraill, the judge said in a written ruling: "Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror.

Link:

Sky news

AeoNGriM

Guill wrote: »

What a tit...

When social networking could cost you your freedom you know that it's not worth it.




8 months is a bit much though





Link:

Sky news

I'm actually surprised they could decipher the crap she wrote, my brain hurts after trying it meself.

Also, good enough for her. Stupid cow.

mikemac

Fool, she should serve the full eight months

Sparks43

Sparks43 likes this:D

Corsendonk

8 months!! She was predicted to get the full two years. She cost £5 million when the trial collasped

Kojak

Good enough for her.

What the hell did she expect? She mustn't have ever heard of contempt of court before this - at least she knows about it now.

She'll hardly serve the full 8 months thought, probably out in no more than 4

jimthemental

jimthemental likes contempt of court and wiping my arse with sandpaper because I'm a fearless bastard

Orim

The 34-year-old Sewart was handed a two-month sentence suspended for two years for her involvement, after also being found guilty of contempt.

Why did she get contempt?

From the article it appears that the juror contacted her and she reported it to her solicitor asap. What on earth was she meant to do?

Teangalad

She should have got another 8 months for being such a clown!!!! honestly what made her think it was okay to contact a defendant in a trial she was involved in !!!

Buddinplant

am delighted she got 8 months, no person these days can play ignorance to the knowledge of contempt of court.

i thought it was obvious that you dont contact anyone involved in the case, esp when your a juror. am surprised they havent fined her aswell to recoup the 5 million plus shes just cost the tax payer. (obviously not 5 million, but something substantial anyway)

eyeball kid

What an idiot. Did she not think that it would be a bad idea?

8 months is a lot though.

Dj Stiggie

When told by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, the length of her sentence...

Is that really his name?


Also, why bother contacting the defendant? Her message made my brain hurt, but it seems she had no reason to do it

Logical Fallacy

eyeball kid wrote: »

8 months is a lot though.

Not really, she severely delayed the Justice system and cost people a **** tonne of money.

mikemac

Orim wrote: »

Why did she get contempt?

From the article it appears that the juror contacted her and she reported it to her solicitor asap. What on earth was she meant to do?

They were passing messages between each other, it's only the last message that got reported to the solicitor

The Daily Mail have a good summary
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/15/article-2003448-0C9072D500000578-777_468x329_popup.jpg
It's pretty damning, she is lucky to just get eight months

Richard Hillman

Stupid from the juror. You avoid the people involved at all costs. It doesnt matter if she thought the woman was guilty or not, it was highly immoral and the sentence sends the message out to all future jurors. Jury duty aint playschool. Peoples lives are being seriously effected.

sock puppet

This was one of my favourite episodes of Peep Show.

TheZohanS

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Stupid from the juror. You avoid the people involved at all costs. It doesnt matter if she thought the woman was guilty or not, it was highly immoral and the sentence sends the message out to all future jurors. Jury duty aint playschool. Peoples lives are being seriously effected.

It was a jury of her peers, shouldn't expect anything less.

mackg

The real question is, Is it right to have people this mentally incapable acting as jurors on criminal trials. If you were on trial for a crime you didn't commit would you trust this clown to find you not guilty?

El Weirdo

mackg wrote: »

The real question is, Is it right to have people this mentally incapable acting as jurors on criminal trials. If you were on trial for a crime you didn't commit would you trust this clown to find you not guilty?

Exactly what I was thinking.

The silly mare can barely spell. How the fuck is she supposed to get her tiny brain around the intricacies of a criminal court case?

Chuck Stone

The cost to the taxpayer is the most criminal aspect of this case imo.

Legalize drugs and put the police and courts to use prosecuting real criminals.

biko

She only got 6 months, and then an added two for terrible spelling.

Solair

I don't really see how this is unique to social networking. When you're on a jury you don't contact the defendant!!

It's no different from ringing the defendant up for a chat or having coffee with them.

I think there's a lot of excessive hype about the fact that it was social networking related.

Sanjuro

What a incredibly stupid, dumb, idiot. I mean, how fucking stupid do you have to be to do something like that? To hell with her.

heyheyhey1982

I'm kind of lost to what she gained by contacting the defendant. Why did she contact her?

What a ****ing idiot though.

7Sins

She got what she deserved

KnifeWRENCH

Heh heh. Lord Judge.
That's all I took out of this story.....