header-logo header-logo

23 June 2011
Issue: 7471 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Contempt of court

Attorney General v Fraill and another; R v Knox [2011] All ER (D) 103 (Jun)

It was settled law that a juror might be in contempt of court. It was a long established principle of common law that the introduction of extraneous material, that was non-evidential material, constituted an irregularity in the jury system. In every case, the defendant, and for that matter, the prosecution, was entitled as a matter of elementary justice not to be subject to a verdict reached on the basis of material or information known to the jury but which was not in evidence at the trial.

Quite apart from contempt of court at common law, s 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provided for the confidentiality of the deliberations of the jury. The offence was committed by anyone who deliberately solicited information about any aspect of a jury’s deliberations, whether in the course of the trial or after its conclusion. Modern technology and the means of communications were advancing at an ever increasing speed. Reference to the internet was inculcated

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll