"MR SECKERSON WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS TO DISSENT FROM THE CONVICTION OF KERAN HENDERSON FOR THE MANSLAUGHTER OF MAEVE SHEPPARD, AN 11-MONTH-OLD CHILD IN HER CARE."
REPORTER CHRIS SMYTH: THE TIMES;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Times story, ran earlier today under the heading, "Judgment reserved in Henderson/Times contempt proceedings," and the sub-heading "Times is accused of revealing jury room secrets."
"The Attorney-General began legal proceedings against The Times yesterday, alleging that the newspaper was in contempt of court for reporting how a jury had reached its verdict, the story by reporter Chris Smith begins;
"The publishers of The Times and Michael Seckerson, a juror, were accused of disclosing the secrets of the jury room in articles about his concerns over a verdict," the story continues;
"In a test case, The Times’s lawyers argue that contempt proceedings against a serious public interest story cannot be justified under human rights law guaranteeing freedom of speech. They say that the case could have a serious effect on the willingness of jurors to raise concerns about verdicts.
Philip Havers, QC, for the Attorney-General, accepted that the articles were in the public interest but asked two judges to make an “order of committal” – carrying a maximum of two years in prison or an unlimited fine – against Mr Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd. Both defendants deny contempt.
Mr Seckerson was one of two jurors to dissent from the conviction of Keran Henderson for the manslaughter of Maeve Sheppard, an 11-month-old child in her care. Henderson, who was jailed for three years at Reading Crown Court in 2007, is to appeal.
Five weeks after the trial The Times published articles by its legal editor, Frances Gibb, reporting that two jurors were questioning the verdict and had concerns about medical opinion in the case. Mr Havers objected only to “specific and very limited passages”. These include one in which Mr Seckerson is quoted as saying: “Consensus was taken three minutes after the foreman was voted in. It was 10-2 against, all based on the evidence. After that there was no going back.”
Mr Havers told Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Sweeney that this was a breach of Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, which makes it an offence “to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury.”
Gavin Millar, QC, for Times Newspapers, said that the case could not be justified with reference to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, subject to exceptions to maintain the “authority and impartiality of the judiciary”. The Attorney-General had to establish a pressing social need for such a ruling, he said.
Mr Millar argued that the passages in question were not forbidden by the terms of the Act: the 10-2 verdict was already in the public domain and Mr Seckerson’s comments were not detailed enough to count as “particulars”. He added that Mr Seckerson was not revealing jurors’ opinions but “how they approached the evidence”.
Rupert Pardoe, for Mr Seckerson, questioned why he was being prosecuted when other jurors who had spoken out had gone unpunished. “If ever a sledgehammer had been brought to bear on a responsible nut, it is this case,” he said.
Judgment was reserved."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
