Attorney General v Fraill & Ors

A juror commits contempt by conducting internet research into matters relevant to the trial or communicating with a defendant about the case while deliberations remain incomplete. Internet material is not evidence and cannot form part of the basis for a verdict. Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits obtaining, disclosing or soliciting particulars of jury deliberations, and applies to jurors, defendants and others alike. Jury deliberations remain confidential indefinitely after the trial. Misconduct is a serious irregularity, but an appeal against conviction depends on whether the extraneous material affected the conviction under consideration.

Joanne Fraill was a juror in a lengthy Crown Court trial involving Jamie Sewart and Gary Knox. After Sewart had been acquitted of the charges against her, Fraill contacted her through Facebook while the jury was still considering outstanding verdicts. Fraill had also conducted internet searches concerning defendants and matters relevant to the trial. Sewart knowingly engaged in the Facebook conversation and solicited information about the jury’s deliberations.

The Divisional Court determined whether Fraill and Sewart were in contempt of court. The court then sat as the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to consider whether the jury misconduct required the quashing of Knox’s conviction.

1. Contempt. A juror’s verdict must be based exclusively on the evidence heard in court. Internet research or other extraneous material is not evidence and creates an unacceptable risk that the verdict will be influenced by material which the parties could not address. The rule applies regardless of the technology used.
2. Section 8. Section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it contempt to obtain, disclose or solicit particulars of statements, opinions, arguments or votes forming part of jury deliberations. The prohibition covers the entire deliberative process and applies to everyone. Fraill contravened the provision by communicating with Sewart about the case and disclosing the state of the jury’s deliberations. She also committed common-law contempt by researching defendants and trial issues online. Sewart committed contempt by knowingly soliciting information about the outstanding deliberations.
3. Knox’s appeal. A suspended police officer remains the holder of public office. Suspension prevents the performance of duties but does not terminate the office or continuing obligations owed to the public. The renewed ground of appeal was therefore refused.
4. The internet material considered by Fraill was not shown to have been adverse to Knox or to have affected his conviction. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The conclusion was reinforced by the strength of the case on count 5 and the jury’s acquittals on the other allegations.
5. Sentences and directions. Fraill was committed to immediate custody for eight months. Sewart received a two-month custodial term suspended for two years. Jury confidentiality continues indefinitely after the trial. Jurors may discuss evidence while all twelve are together in private, provided they keep open minds until the evidence and summing-up are complete.

• High Court (Administrative Court): determined the contempt allegations against Fraill and Sewart.
• Court of Appeal Criminal Division: dismissed Knox’s appeal against conviction.