Attorney General v Fraill & Anor

A juror must decide a criminal case exclusively on the evidence heard in court. Independent internet research and communications about an unfinished case with a defendant are serious contempts because they introduce extraneous material and undermine the integrity of jury trial.

Section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 protects the confidentiality of all jury deliberations. It prohibits both disclosure and intentional solicitation of deliberative information, and that confidentiality continues after the trial. A jury irregularity will not render a conviction unsafe where the extraneous material had no adverse relevance to the convicted defendant. A suspended police officer continues to hold public office for misconduct in public office.

During a lengthy drugs and police-corruption trial at the Crown Court at Manchester, Joanne Fraill, a juror, repeatedly searched the internet for information about people connected with the case. After Jamie Sewart had been acquitted, Fraill contacted her through Facebook while the jury was still considering outstanding verdicts. Their messages included information about the jury’s deliberations.

The court sat as a Divisional Court to determine the Attorney General’s contempt proceedings against Fraill and Sewart. It also sat as the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to determine Gary Knox’s renewed ground concerning the status of a suspended police officer and his fresh appeal based on the jury misconduct. The central issues were whether the communications amounted to contempt, whether Knox’s conviction was unsafe, and the appropriate sanctions.

1. Disposition. The court found both Fraill and Sewart in contempt of court. It dismissed Knox’s appeal against conviction. Fraill was committed immediately for eight months. Sewart received a two-month custodial term suspended for two years.
2. Fraill’s repeated internet searches for trial-related information breached her oath and the judge’s unequivocal directions. Her Facebook discussion with Sewart, while verdicts remained outstanding, also disclosed information about the jury’s deliberations. The conduct was contempt at common law and contravened section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
3. Section 8(1) protects the entire process of jury deliberation. Following the meaning of solicitation identified in R v Mirtza; Connor and Rollick [2004] 1AC 1118, Sewart intentionally sought information from a juror who possessed it. Her question about the outstanding charge could only be understood as soliciting particulars of deliberations. Her knowledge that the contact was forbidden confirmed the contempt.
4. Knox’s renewed ground failed because Berry, though suspended, remained a police officer subject to the governing regulations and code of conduct. He therefore continued to hold public office. The fresh ground also failed. The internet material identified by Fraill did not adversely affect Knox’s defence or add weight to the prosecution case. The strength of the evidence on count 5 and the jury’s acquittals of Knox on other counts fortified, but did not determine, that conclusion.
5. Misuse of the internet by a juror and contravention of section 8(1) are exceptionally serious. Custody will ordinarily be virtually inevitable. Fraill’s immediate admissions and absence of an attempt to pervert justice mitigated her sentence. Sewart’s lesser role, and the serious effect that immediate custody would have on her restored relationship with her young child, justified suspension.
6. By way of guidance, jury secrecy continues indefinitely after the trial. Jurors may discuss evidence before retirement only when all are together and in private; they must keep open minds until the evidence and summing-up are complete.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Knox’s renewed and fresh grounds of appeal against his conviction on count 5 were dismissed.
• Divisional Court. In the same hearing, the court determined the Attorney General’s contempt proceedings against Fraill and Sewart, finding each in contempt and imposing sentence.
• Crown Court at Manchester. Before His Honour Judge Lakin, Knox was convicted of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office. After the Facebook contact emerged, the jury was discharged from returning the outstanding verdicts and a retrial was ordered on those counts.