Showing posts with label Juror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Juror. Show all posts

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Facebook juror given eight months

16 June 2011 Last updated at 13:53 GMT Joanne Fraill Fraill, seen here outside court, contacted Sewart after the latter was cleared in a drugs trial A juror who contacted a defendant via Facebook, causing a ?6m drugs trial to collapse, has been jailed for eight months for contempt of court.

Joanne Fraill had admitted the charge, in the first UK case of its kind.

London's High Court heard that Fraill, 40, of Blackley, Greater Manchester, had contacted Jamie Sewart, 34, who had already been cleared in the drugs case.

Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC said Fraill's case had been taken to court to protect jury integrity.

'Calm down'

Sewart, of Bolton, was given a two-month sentence suspended for two years after she was found guilty of contempt.

Because other defendants were still on trial at the time of the contact between Fraill and Sewart, the judge decided to discharge the jury and the drugs case in Manchester, which cost ?6m, collapsed.

Fraill cried uncontrollably in court, and gasped "eight months" - as did her family - as her sentence was handed down on Thursday.

Continue reading the main story

Today's prison term sends a very strong signal to all serving jurors who are tempted to research their trial online, or communicate with other people about it.

But will it be enough to stop those serving on juries from using the internet?

Research published 18 months ago showed for the first time that jurors were going to the internet to do research.

In standard trials 5% of jurors admitted doing this. In high profile trials the number was nearly three times that.

If today's sentence fails to stop jurors researching cases and communicating about them online, then it may be time to look again at our strict contempt of court laws.

It may be that the cherished principle of the sanctity of the jury room cannot be maintained in the face of modern communications, the internet and social networking.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who heard the case, then announced a short adjournment "for everyone to calm down".

Sentencing Fraill, Lord Judge said in a written ruling: "Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror, and her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial."

Later Sewart said: "I really feel for the woman [Fraill]. She's got kids. She apologised and she's not a bad lady."

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says Fraill is likely to spend four months in jail, at which point she'll be eligible for early release.

Mr Garnier said any form of communication by jurors was subject to the same rules as those laid down in the court.

"One doesn't need to get too hung up about the magic of the internet," he said.

"Jurors have been able to gossip with their neighbours, be influenced by their friends and go to the public library to look up things. What is important is that the integrity of the jury system should be preserved and protected," he said outside court.

"Whether you communicate by Facebook, whether you research on the internet, whether you talk over your garden fence and are influenced by others, you must understand when you take an oath as a member of a jury, when you disobey that oath or when you disobey the instructions of the judge, and it is discovered, you may very well be held in contempt."

Solicitor General Edward Garnier said it was important that "the integrity of the jury system was maintained and preserved".

The case, brought by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, was heard by Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Holroyde.

Lord Judge had previously told Sewart that any prison sentence on her would be suspended because she has a three-year-old child from whom she had already been separated during the crown court trial.

At the High Court hearing, mother-of-three Fraill admitted she had made online contact with Sewart and discussed the case with her while the jury's deliberations were continuing.

She also admitted revealing details of the jury's deliberations during that online conversation - contrary to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 - and conducting internet research into a defendant whose case she was trying as a juror during the trial.

'Considerable empathy'

That was despite the judge reminding all the jurors that they must decide the case solely on the evidence given in court.

Fraill was a juror in a case which had already been halted twice.

On 3 August last year, the judge in the third trial of the alleged drugs gang gave jurors the option of deciding the verdict by a majority rather than unanimously.

But the High Court was told the trial was stopped the following day when Sewart's solicitor informed the court that his client and Fraill had been in contact via Facebook.

The court heard the initial contact came after Fraill went on the social networking website and tracked down Sewart, saying: "You should know me - I've cried with you enough."

Fraill was said by her lawyer to have felt "considerable empathy" for Sewart as the trial "gathered in momentum and intensity".

The two continued to talk about the case and used expressions such as "lol" and other internet slang.

Peter Wright QC, for Fraill, said his client was terrified at the prospect of prison and was distraught and inconsolable about what she had done.


View the original article here

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Juror admits contact via Facebook

14 June 2011 Last updated at 16:11 GMT Joanne Fraill, Jamie Sewart arriving at the High Court on 14 June 2011 Fraill (left) initiated the Facebook exchanges after Sewart was cleared A juror, who contacted a defendant via Facebook, has admitted contempt of court in the first case of its kind in the UK involving the internet.

London's High Court heard that Joanne Fraill, 40, contacted Jamie Sewart, 34, who had already been acquitted in a drugs trial costing ?6m in Manchester.

Because other defendants were still on trial, the judge decided to discharge the jury, and the case collapsed.

Sewart was also found to be in contempt.

She had admitted the online contact took place but denied it amounted to an offence.

The case, brought by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, was heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Holroyde.

Continue reading the main story image of Dominic Casciani Dominic Casciani BBC News home affairs correspondent

Last year, the Lord Chief Justice used a speech to effectively warn that someone will end up behind bars if jurors use the internet to find out information about cases they are trying.

That someone is Joanne Fraill, a previously hard-working woman of good character who broke every rule in the book.

Her case and likely forthcoming jail sentence for Contempt of Court sets a legal precedent because it is the first time that the judiciary has tackled what many of their number suspect has been going on.

There are anecdotal stories of jurors digging around the internet to research defendants and academic research found as many as 12% of jurors in big trials could be doing so.

The finding against Fraill is a very public statement by the Lord Chief Justice that just because it is easy to contact people online, it is unacceptable to do so where it interferes with justice.

Sentencing is expected to take place on Thursday.

The maximum penalty for contempt is two years imprisonment.

Lord Judge told mother-of-three Fraill, from Blackley, Greater Manchester, that she should expect to be sent to prison.

But he said he would not be able to decide on the length of the term until a linked appeal against conviction brought by another defendant in the case - who was potentially affected by her actions - was concluded.

He told Sewart, from Bolton, that any prison sentence on her would be suspended because she has a three-year-old child from whom she had already been separated during the crown court trial.

At the High Court hearing, Fraill admitted she had made online contact with Sewart and discussed the case with her while the jury's deliberations were continuing.

She also admitted revealing details of the jury's deliberations during that online conversation - contrary to Contempt of Court Act 1981 - and conducting internet research into a defendant whose case she was trying as a juror during the trial.

That was despite the judge reminding all the jurors that they must decide the case solely on the evidence given in court.

'Home and dry'

Fraill was on a jury in a case which had already been halted twice.

On 3 August last year, the judge in the third trial of the alleged drugs gang gave jurors the option of deciding the verdict by a majority rather than unanimously.

But the High Court was told the trial was stopped the following day when Sewart's solicitor informed the court that his client and Fraill had been in contact by Facebook.

The court heard the initial contact came after Fraill went on the social networking website and tracked down Sewart, saying: "You should know me - I've cried with you enough."

Fraill was said by her lawyer to have felt "considerable empathy" for Sewart as the trial ""gathered in momentum and intensity".

"Can't believe they had u on remand," she said in another one of their conversations, a transcript released by the court shows.

Fraill added she thought she recognised one of the other defendants and when asked by Sewart how the jury was dealing with one of the outstanding charges said: "Cant get anywaone to go either no one budging... don't say anything cause jamie they could cause miss trial".

The two continued to talk about the case and used expressions such as "lol" and other internet slang, as well as variants of spelling commonly used in such messages.

Frail also said: "At least then yer all home n dry".

And Sewart responded: "Ha ha, ur mad. I really appreciate everythin. If i cud of kissed u all i would of done ha ha."

Continue reading the main story
Her conduct, though reprehensible, was not calculated or designed by her to subvert the trial process”

End Quote Peter Wright QC She went on to say: "Keep in touch and I'll get u a nice pressie..."

The pair agreed to become Facebook friends after the trial.

Fraill also described her role on the jury in their conversations. "All that note-taking was just killing time. lol. drew more than i wrote lol," she said.

Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC told the High Court that that contact and discussion were in direct breach of the judge's repeated directions to the jury - and it constituted a contempt of court.

Peter Wright QC, for Fraill, said his client was terrified at the prospect of prison and was distraught and inconsolable about what she had done.

He described her as a woman of completely unblemished character before she "lost her senses" in the Facebook exchanges.

He said she only contacted Sewart because she saw in the younger woman's life her own.

"Her conduct, though reprehensible, was not calculated or designed by her to subvert the trial process, although it is conceded that that was an inevitable consequence of it," he added.

Leaving court, Sewart said she was "massively relieved" to be told she would not serve a custodial term.

She added: "I regret everything. She contacted me. My mind was in a whirlwind. I had just been acquitted. When I sat back and thought about it I realised I should report it and I did."


View the original article here