Contempt of Court

ajf

ajf

ajf

Soldato
Joined
30 Oct 2006
Posts
3,067
Location
Worcestershire, UK
Saw this article today on the BBC:

Link contains swear words even if it's on the BBC.

Two jurors have been jailed for 2 months each for either posting a comment on Facebook or researching the case.

Whilst I understand contempt of court does anyone else feel the results were a little harsh?
They now have a criminal record for what was probably just moments of daftness rather than premeditated actions.

Worse crimes can and do get less!
Surely a fine and/or caution would have sufficed?
 
No, I've done jury service and it's made absolutely clear from the start that you are not to do this sort of stuff! It completely undermines the justice system.
 
I can understand how they'd find out if you posted on Facebook, given how easily a search would bring up your details. But how would they know if you googled some info on the case? :confused:
 
It's the core to the justice system so if that starts to fail then you start to question every other decision that's been made, thus strict punishment is required to ensure the credibility of the court and jury system.

To actually get caught researching means he's openly spoken about it in the deliberation room which is plain stupid so deserves to be punished for that, as for the other, openly accusing a man before the trial is over is not fair on the person in the docks is it, innocent until proven guilty etc.

A juror has to base his decision on the evidence provided in court and listen to the entire event before passing their final judgement. Any deviation from his can void a case and let guilty men go free.
 
EVH said:
I can understand how they'd find out if you posted on Facebook, given how easily a search would bring up your details. But how would they know if you googled some info on the case? :confused:
Click to expand...

According to the article he discussed extra details about the defendant with the other jurors so I'd guess through that.

No sympathy at all, it's made 100% clear at the start of being a juror what the laws are and why they are there, and they ignored them.
 
Regards the Google point. I believe it stated that the juror then told the other jurors the additional information. Presumably one of them then reported it.
I certainly do not agree with or condone their actions.
Just somewhat surprised at the level of punishment for this in comparison to some crimes.
I guess never having done jury service I don't see the full picture. On a different note though, it must be extremely difficult to avoid reading media coverage etc that could bias your feelings if it is a major case.
 
You can get away with most crimes - including violent offences - in the UK with just a relative slap on the wrist. If your crime is against the legal establishment however then expect to have the book thrown at you.
 
Two months jail is a bit harsh, but I think a fine or caution wouldn't be harsh enough.

I've done jury service and they bang on about not doing this sort of thing, and for good reason. It ruins the basis on which our system of criminal trials rests. In both these cases the trials had to be abandoned, and rightly so. You shouldn't have jurors routinely judging cases based on whatever someone somewhere happened to say about it online. There's loads of stuff online that's speculation presented as fact or outright lies presented as fact. Nor should you have jurors who decide a defendant is guilty before the trial merely because of what they're accused of. That one, hopefully, is obvious.

Now that I think about it some more, maybe 2 months isn't too harsh.
 
Perfectly fair and reasonable punishment. The integrity of the court is at stake. Mind you given the pathetic slaps on the wrist you get for election fraud they do seem a bit harsh.
 
ajf said:
Regards the Google point. I believe it stated that the juror then told the other jurors the additional information. Presumably one of them then reported it.
I certainly do not agree with or condone their actions.
Just somewhat surprised at the level of punishment for this in comparison to some crimes.
I guess never having done jury service I don't see the full picture. On a different note though, it must be extremely difficult to avoid reading media coverage etc that could bias your feelings if it is a major case.
Click to expand...

This is why programmes such as Have I Got News For You have to walk a very thin line when discussing current cases. News and the like can only report what has already been revealed to jurors in court, i.e. the facts.
 
ajf said:
Regards the Google point. I believe it stated that the juror then told the other jurors the additional information. Presumably one of them then reported it.
I certainly do not agree with or condone their actions.
Just somewhat surprised at the level of punishment for this in comparison to some crimes.
I guess never having done jury service I don't see the full picture. On a different note though, it must be extremely difficult to avoid reading media coverage etc that could bias your feelings if it is a major case.
Click to expand...

It's strict to act as a clear deterrent - that case had to be completely restarted because of the muppet not being able to resist a quick google. It makes a mockery of the justice system going in with extra evidence, and in cases like these can cost hundreds of thousands if not more to restart.
 
Narj said:
No, I've done jury service and it's made absolutely clear from the start that you are not to do this sort of stuff! It completely undermines the justice system.
Click to expand...

Yup - we had it drummed into us not to do any digging and that the only place we should discuss the case was when the whole jury was together as a group.
 
ajf said:
I guess never having done jury service I don't see the full picture. On a different note though, it must be extremely difficult to avoid reading media coverage etc that could bias your feelings if it is a major case.
Click to expand...

My jury service was one case for two weeks. I avoided papers and skipped the TV news. Simples.
 
I believe after that case a couple of years back where a juror contacted a defendant on twitter and consequently ended up serving a jail sentence, there were new guidelines drawn up which outline to a jury beforehand how use of the internet is contempt of court and the seriousness it carries.

So really after that, these people have no excuse.
 
I agree that they should have got jail time because anything else wouldn't be harsh enough.
However, I feel like a month or two weeks of jail would have a pretty similar impact for a regular person, and it still sends a strong message.
 
Davey's Facebook post: read: "Woooow I wasn't expecting to be in a jury Deciding a paedophile's fate, I've always wanted to **** up a paedophile & now I'm within the law!"
Click to expand...

While I'm sure most will empathise with the general sentiment it does seem a bit ex-News of the World reader/white van driver.

I'm sure the rules are fairly clear so don't have any sympathy for these people. Then again these two cases aren't as bad at least as the woman juror who actually found and contacted a defendant via facebook to have a chat with her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom