HM Solicitor General v Stoddart

A juror who conducts internet research about a defendant or trial commits a serious contempt of court. The jury’s verdict must rest exclusively on evidence received in court, because undisclosed external information cannot be tested by the parties and undermines a fair trial and public confidence in the jury system. An effective custodial sentence is ordinarily virtually inevitable. Delay in investigating and bringing proceedings may, however, make immediate custody unfair. Sentence must be assessed in the circumstances of the individual case, including any guilty plea and the consequences of delay.

Mr Stoddart admitted that, while serving as a juror in a burglary trial, he searched the internet for information about the defendant’s past during an overnight adjournment. The search revealed previous convictions. The defendant’s conviction was subsequently quashed and a retrial was ordered, although it did not proceed.

The Solicitor General brought contempt proceedings. The respondent conceded the contempt, so the Divisional Court granted permission, found the contempt proved, and determined sentence. The central issues were the seriousness of juror internet research, the appropriate custodial approach, and the effect of delay and personal mitigation.

1. Contempt established. The respondent had repeatedly been warned not to conduct internet research and had been specifically directed by the trial judge to decide the case only on evidence presented in court. His admitted search therefore constituted contempt of court. External research threatens the integrity of the criminal justice system because information obtained by a juror may be inaccurate and cannot be challenged by the parties.
2. Importance of the jury system. The jury’s deliberations and verdict must be based exclusively on the evidence given at trial. Modern communication technology does not alter that fundamental principle. Juror misconduct of this kind risks the safety of convictions and public confidence in the administration of justice.
3. Sentencing approach. Following the approach identified in Attorney-General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin), an effective custodial sentence for juror misuse of the internet is ordinarily virtually inevitable. The court nevertheless had to consider all the circumstances, including the respondent’s guilty plea, his personal and financial circumstances, and the substantial delay before proceedings were brought.
4. Effect of delay and sentence. The delay was substantially longer than in the other authorities considered. Although the contempt was serious, the court concluded that immediate custody would be unfair. The respondent was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay £1,000 towards the Attorney General’s costs within three months.
5. The court encouraged the relevant bodies to develop a protocol for the prompt investigation and resolution of allegations of juror misconduct.

The judgment records that the conviction arising from the respondent’s jury service had previously been quashed by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, following investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission: [2015] EWCA Crim 2502. These proceedings concerned the respondent’s separate liability for contempt and sentence.