contempt of court by juror

Tombo2000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research

Spotted this online and thought it was interesting:

"Theodora Dallas, 34, who taught psychology at the University of Bedfordshire, was found guilty of contempt of court by three high court judges, including Lord Judge, the lord chief justice.
The case highlights the growing problem courts face in ensuring jurors do not use the internet to investigate cases in an era when looking facts up on a computer seems an increasingly natural instinct.
Dallas, who conducted her research at home, was a juror in the trial at Luton crown court in July 2011. She told members of the jury what she had found out about the defendant, Barry Medlock, who was on trial for causing grievous bodily harm. The judge had to halt the case after discovering what had occurred, though Medlock was eventually retried and found guilty."

It reminds me a bit of that case in the four courts a few years back where a legal secretary in the four courts was given 6 months where basically her senior colleague had asked her to alter some summons relating a dangerous driving offence of the friend of her colleagues; she did it because she was asked by a senior, out of naivety rather than being paid/bribed/ receiving anything for it.

My point being, I've seen so many cases where people get lenient sentences for the most horrific crimes.....

....but where it comes to even apparently minor infractions within the operation of the courts, they have no problem dishing out a 6 month stretch.

seamus

Tombo2000 wrote: »

My point being, I've seen so many cases where people get lenient sentences for the most horrific crimes.....

....but where it comes to even apparently minor infractions within the operation of the courts, they have no problem dishing out a 6 month stretch.

To be fair, she got 3 + 3 rather than a full six months.

But your point is valid. However, a bit like stiffer penalties for assaulting a police officer versus assaulting a civilian, when it comes to the organs of the law, it's arguably more important that their integrity is maintained versus the general integrity of society.

That is, commiting a crime in contempt of the court is undermining the very process that is used to underpin civil society. Without respect for the justice system, the entire basis of peaceful society falls down.

I agree that six months is probably a bit harsh, though in her case the level of contempt is well above and beyond a simple mistake or error in judgement. She would have been well aware of her duties as a juror and the restrictions placed upon her in that role.

coylemj

Tombo2000 wrote: »

....but where it comes to even apparently minor infractions within the operation of the courts, they have no problem dishing out a 6 month stretch.

She had no chance of avoiding jail given the publicity the case got plus as a relatively well educated person she couldn't ask for a fool's pardon. She did try the language fudge because she's Greek and came to the UK when she was 19 but the fact that she got an post lecturing in psychology in a UK university washed that one down the toilet.

I'd have given her 12 months for stupidity alone, she did the research at home which she was told not to, then she went into the jury room and told her fellow jurors what she had found via Google, how dumb is that?

The judges knew that sending her to jail would get even more publicity, mission accomplished. Means that every new jury sitting in the jury room will talk about her the minute someone whips out a smartphone.

Peregrinus

Tombo2000 wrote: »

....but where it comes to even apparently minor infractions within the operation of the courts, they have no problem dishing out a 6 month stretch.

This is not a minor infraction.

Because of her actions, a trial had to be aborted and a new trial organised. Leaving aside the expense to the public of this, the defendant may have had to spend weeks or months in custody without having been convicted or, at best, on remand, but with his life on hold. And the victims of the crime in question had to spend weeks or months more without the closure that a trial and verdict would bring.

Not to mention the fact that, if her behaviour had not come to light, the defendant might very well have been convicted and imprisoned, or alternatively acquitted and freed, on the basis of a flawed trial and unverified evidence.

Not minor at all.

johnnyskeleton

VOICEofJUSTICE wrote: »

If you feel that this woman has been treated unfairly and does not deserve such a harsh sentence, please sign this petition in her support!

<snip>

Support the rights of jurors to treat jury service as a joke? No thanks.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Support the rights of jurors to treat jury service as a joke? No thanks.

+1 That petition is a complete joke.

During the trial, in an attempt to clarify the accurate legal meaning of "grievous bodily harm" she stumbled upon information relevant to the defendant's past

She didn't 'stumble' upon anything, she did a search on Google in which she used 'Luton' within the search as a result of which she 'stumbled' upon the fact that the accused had previously been charged with GBH.

which she allegedly mentioned in discussions with the other jurors.

She didn't 'allegedly' mention it, she did mention it and admitted to so doing.

When this came to the attention of the judge by one of the jurors, the trial was aborted and prosecution proceedings were started against Dr. Dallas for contempt of court.

'this' being the 'alleged' mentioning of prejudicial facts to other jurors.

The judges decided that Theodora had understood the instructions very well and had done her search because she deliberately wanted to influence the jury. The judges passed on their sentence without proving any motive as to why Theodora would have wanted to influence the jury and without explaining how a “highly intelligent” woman, shared with strangers an action that she knew bore a jail sentence.

Since when does the state need to prove a motive? What she did was plain stupid but more importantly, it was illegal and she got what she deserved.

it would seem that she is being used to make an example to future jurors.

At least they got something right.

Manach

I'd disagree with the correctness of the sentence and the justification for it, based on historical norms. Civil society is based on an network of trust, and the Justice system exists solely to rectify transgressions within it. Society has radically altered since the advent of creation of 12-person juries. Then there was a likelihood that all 12 had some knowledge of the defendant in the dock and had a shared community with the defendant. [source Whitman's "The origins of reasonable doubt", 2008]
In a modern society, especially in urban areas this no longer applies. So the use of social apps and search engines are a technological means to compensate to re-build this sense of community, the same technology advances that are used to process evidence. Thus the juror in question was engaging in a time honoured pursuit of the truth.

suemartin

I think the judge had no choice... Jury trial is the "golden metwand" of the law and has to be protected at all costs.

Victor

Manach wrote: »

Then there was a likelihood that all 12 had some knowledge of the defendant in the dock and had a shared community with the defendant.

Correspondingly, they were unlikely to have been subject to dubious, uncontested accounts of past allegations / convictions.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

I'd disagree with the correctness of the sentence and the justification for it, based on historical norms. Civil society is based on an network of trust, and the Justice system exists solely to rectify transgressions within it. Society has radically altered since the advent of creation of 12-person juries. Then there was a likelihood that all 12 had some knowledge of the defendant in the dock and had a shared community with the defendant. [source Whitman's "The origins of reasonable doubt", 2008]
In a modern society, especially in urban areas this no longer applies. So the use of social apps and search engines are a technological means to compensate to re-build this sense of community, the same technology advances that are used to process evidence. Thus the juror in question was engaging in a time honoured pursuit of the truth.

That system was abandoned because it was unfair - an unpopularperson could be convicted out of dislike while the popular people get away with murder.