The ECtHR found there had been no violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention of Human Rights in the case of a woman who had been convicted of contempt of court as a result of her conducting internet research in relation to a criminal case in which she was a juror.
In 2011 the applicant Ms Dallas attended jury service in the Crown Court in the UK. Before the case opened the judge gave a number of directions including the fact the case must be decided on what was presented at trial and that discussion of the case with others outside of the jury and use of the internet was not permitted. During the course of the trial it came to the attention of the trial judge the applicant Ms Dallas had conducted internet research on the accused and that this was shared with her fellow jurors. The trial was aborted and Ms Dallas was charged with contempt of court. Ms Dallas accepted she had conducted the internet search but denied the specific intent to impede or cause a real risk of prejudice to the due administration of justice. Ms Dallas argued that as the pre-trial directions had been unclear and could not be assimilated to a court order prohibiting her from conducting internet research her conviction for contempt should be overturned. The applicant’s leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
In making its finding the ECtHR found that Art 7 should be construed and applied in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment. It also restricted its interpretation stating it should not be read as preventing domestic courts from gradually clarifying the rules and definition of criminal liability through judicial interpretation. The ECtHR found that the test for contempt of court applied in Ms Dallas’ case had been both accessible and foreseeable. Furthermore, it was primarily for the national authorities to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic law.
The Court concluded that exposing herself and fellow jurors to external information about a defendant contrary to an order of the trial judge amounted to intention to commit an act that at the very least carries a real risk of being prejudicial to the administration of justice. It was found the law-making function of the domestic courts had remained within reasonable limits. There was, accordingly, no violation of Article 7 nor any other article of the Convention.
In 2013, the Law Commission published a report identifying problems with the law and procedure for dealing with jurors who disobeyed their instructions. It noted that the relevant conduct was treated as contempt because it was a breach of a judge’s order not to undertake research into the case. Following these recommendations, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 amended the Juries Act 1974 to make it an offence for a juror to conduct research into a case on which he/she is sitting as a juror and to disclose such research to other jury members (see section 20A and section 20B Juries Act 1974). The new offences came into force on 13 April 2015.
For the full judgment, click here.
For the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, click here.
For further commentary on the case click here.