Attorney General's Office

Juror and defendant sentenced for contempt of court over Facebook exchanges

Following a case brought by the Attorney General and presented by the Solicitor General, a juror and an acquitted defendant in a drugs conspiracy trial in Manchester Crown Court were today given custodial sentences (one suspended) at the High Court in London for contempt of court over online discussions the two had engaged in during the trial. They were found guilty by the High Court on Tuesday.

Joanne Fraill, the juror, and Jamie Sewart, the defendant, discussed the trial on the social networking site Facebook. Their activities led to the trial in Manchester Crown Court in 2010 being abandoned.

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Holroyde, sitting at the High Court, heard how the pair discussed the deliberations of the jury of which Fraill was a member and which had acquitted Sewart but had yet to return verdicts on three other defendants. The trial, which had been running for ten weeks, ended when the judge discharged the jury after learning of Fraill's actions. Fraill was sentenced today to eight months in custody and Sewart, to two months' custody, suspended for two years.

Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC MP, who presented the case in person, said:

"The Lord Chief Justice could not have been clearer. Joanne Fraill and Jamie Sewart's conduct was a clear contempt of court. Jurors should take careful note and know that the Law Officers will prosecute those who commit contempt."

"Both of these women were well aware that they should not have been engaging in this discussion. The jury system is a cornerstone of our society and confidence in this vital part of our criminal justice system will crumble if jurors do not take their responsibilities seriously. Long before social networks, the courts have been in no doubt that discussions inside the jury room must stay there. The internet doesn't make judges' warnings not to talk about a case or research it any less important."

The application to prosecute was made by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, for contempt of court at common law and under section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The Attorney and Solicitor General are able to bring proceedings in their public interest capacity.

-ends-

For media enquiries please contact:
The Attorney General's Press Office on 020 7271 2484/2440/2465
Or email russell.hayes@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk

Notes to editors

1. The Attorney General and Solicitor General bring prosecutions for contempt in the public interest but the interpretation of the law is not a matter for the Law Officers or for government. Like all laws, be they statute or common law, their interpretation is developed through precedent, i.e. successive rulings by judges in cases brought.

2. The grounds against Joanne Fraill were that:

(i) On the evening of 3 August 2010, at about 18.30 hours, she contacted
Jamie Sewart via the internet and conducted an online discussion with her.
This discussion took place at a time when the jury still had outstanding verdicts to return on the case. That contact and discussion were in direct breach of the judge's repeated directions to the jury that they should not discuss the case with anyone outside their number, and constituted a contempt of court at common law.

(ii) On the same occasion, Fraill provided particulars of the jury's
deliberations to Sewart, also in breach of section 8 of the Contempt of
Court Act 1981.

(iii) On dates between about 26 May 2010 and 3 August 2010 Fraill conducted
research on the internet into the defendants in the criminal trial on which she was
sitting as a juror, during the course of that trial, in direct breach of the judge's directions to the jury that they should not seek to explore any issues in the trial on the internet (in particular such a direction was given in his preliminary directions to the jury given on 26 May 2010). That conduct constituted a contempt of court at common law.

3. The court also heard that on 3 August 2010, Jamie Sewart solicited from Fraill particulars of the jury's deliberations in relation to the count on which they were still considering, in breach of section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

4. The trial ended by the two women's contempt was the third trial of the drugs supply and conspiracy charges against the eight defendants. The first two trials were also abandoned for other legal reasons in November 2009 and February 2010. The third trial began in May 2010 and was abandoned in August 2010. That led to a fourth trial of the charges that had so far been undecided, in November 2010.