"AFTER THE HIGH COURT RULING, THE NEWS INTERNATIONAL TITLE SAID: "THE TIMES BELIEVES THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS A SERIOUS INFRINGEMENT OF ITS ARTICLE 10 RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND ITS DUTY TO ACT AS WATCHDOG IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN COMPLEX CASES WHERE THERE COULD BE A SERIOUS INJUSTICE." IF THE HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT WERE NOT REVERSED BY THE LAW LORDS, IT WOULD HAVE "A VERY SERIOUS CHILLING EFFECT ON JURORS AND NEWSPAPERS TRYING TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC AREAS OF VERY CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN, PARTICULARLY IN MANSLAUGHTER CASES INVOLVING THE DEATHS OF BABIES AND THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES"."
THE GUARDIAN:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian story ran yesterday under the heading "The Times promises to appeal after £15,000 contempt of court fine" and a sub-heading, "The Times fined £15,000 and jury foreman £500 over article that discussed jury dissent in child manslaughter case."
"The Times has said that it will appeal after it was today fined £15,000 in the high court for contempt of court over two articles published last December about jury dissent in a child manslaughter case," the story begins;
"Michael Seckerson – who was the jury foreman and one of two dissenting jurors in the trial of Keran Henderson last autumn and provided the information to the Times – was fined £500 and also intends to appeal to the House of Lords," the story continues;
"The high court last week found the newspaper and Seckerson guilty of disclosing the "secrets of the jury room" in a contempt-of-court case brought by the attorney general, Baroness Scotland.
Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act bans disclosure of "votes cast, statements made, opinions expressed or arguments advanced" by members of a jury in their deliberations.
The attorney general was awarded £27,426 costs, which will be picked up by the Times because Seckerson's defence was paid for by legal aid and the judges ruled that costs should not be enforced against him without the leave of the court.
Lawyers for the Times said the newspaper respected the court's judgment on the contempt issue, but an apology would ring "hollow" because it did not agree with the court and would attempt to appeal to the law lords.
They pointed out there had been no damage to the administration of justice, no individual juror was identified and no individual's opinions were disclosed. They said the articles were written in good faith, after taking legal advice, on a matter of public importance – the heavy reliance placed on expert medical evidence in "shaken baby" cases.
The defendants argued unsuccessfully that contempt proceedings could not be justified in this case in the light of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression, subject to exceptions such as the need to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Lord Justice Pill, who heard the case alongside Mr Justice Sweeney, said the court acknowledged those mitigating factors, but had to impose penalties "sufficient to mark the seriousness of breaches of section 8 and to deter others from following the example of this juror and this newspaper".
After the high court ruling, the News International title said: "The Times believes that this judgment is a serious infringement of its article 10 right to free speech and its duty to act as watchdog in a democratic society, particularly in complex cases where there could be a serious injustice."
If the high court's judgment were not reversed by the law lords, it would have "a very serious chilling effect on jurors and newspapers trying to bring to the attention of the public areas of very considerable public concern, particularly in manslaughter cases involving the deaths of babies and the use of expert witnesses".
The Times ran two articles on 19 December 2007 by the newspaper's legal editor, Frances Gibb, about the trial of Henderson, who was convicted of manslaughter of a child in her care, 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard. Henderson was jailed for three years but is to appeal against her conviction.
The articles, which ran five weeks after Henderson's trial in Reading crown court, reported that two jurors questioned the verdict and the role that complicated evidence from expert medical witnesses played in the trial.
Seckerson, 66, a retired lecturer at East Berkshire College, apologised to the court today but reserved the right to seek leave to appeal."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
