{"id":201,"date":"2005-05-26T20:07:11","date_gmt":"2005-05-26T20:07:11","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2005-05-26T20:07:11","modified_gmt":"2005-05-26T20:07:11","slug":"attorney-general-v-scotcher-2005-hl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=201","title":{"rendered":"Attorney General v Scotcher [2005] HL"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Juries – to reveal deliberations is contempt of court]
<\/strong> D a juror wrote to the mother of two brothers convicted of drugs offences thereby disclosing the jury’s deliberations. <\/p>\n

Held<\/strong>: His intention to expose an injustice was no defence to proceedings under s 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. He could have written to the trial judge, Court of Appeal, the jury bailiff, defendant’s lawyer, or Citizens’ Advice Bureau. <\/p>\n

Guilty<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Comment<\/strong>: Options facing a juror concerned by a possible injustice were clarified in this case. The strict rule protecting the confidentiality of jury deliberations was upheld, but their Lordships agreed that if D had raised his concern with the trial judge, the appeal court, the jury bailiff or the defendant’s lawyer, or even sent a sealed letter to the court via an outside agency such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, he would have been safe from prosecution. By upholding the secrecy of the deliberations, it seems that there is little anyone can do even when they are alerted to an abuse of process. <\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Problem<\/strong>: If we tell you why the jury wanted to produce a quick verdict and whether they wanted to get off home, we would probably be in contempt of court. The House of Lords can’t be in contempt of itself so it is allowed to report the contents of the letter from Mr Scotcher in full. As we can’t tell you, you will have to read the whole case yourself; fortunately it is only one page long (a big page).<\/em> <\/p>\n

Full case here<\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[Juries – to reveal deliberations is contempt of court] D a juror wrote to the mother of two brothers convicted of drugs offences thereby disclosing the jury’s deliberations. Held: His intention to expose an injustice was no defence to proceedings under s 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. He could have written to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}