KERAN HENDERSON CASE; PART 23; BRITISH LAW PROFESSOR CALLS FOR INCREASED TRANSPARENCY OF JURY VERDICTS; THE TIMES;

"IN THE CASE AGAINST THE TIMES, LORD JUSTICE PILL SAID THAT THE STRENGTH AND VALUE OF THE JURY DEPEND ON “THE OPEN AND FRANK EXPRESSION OF VIEWS BETWEEN 12 PEOPLE IN THE SECRECY OF THE JURY ROOM” AND THAT “CONFIDENCE TO EXPRESS VIEWS IN THAT WAY DEPENDS ON THE JUROR’S KNOWLEDGE THAT THE VIEWS WILL NOT BE REVEALED OUTSIDE THE JURY ROOM”. THE REASON FOR THAT PRINCIPLE IS THAT BY KEEPING SECRET WHAT ANY NAMED JUROR SAYS, OR HOW HE OR SHE VOTES, THE SYSTEM PREVENTS BLACKMAIL AND BRIBERY. BUT THAT PROTECTION REMAINED INVIOLATE AFTER THE TIMES ARTICLE BECAUSE ONLY A VOLUNTEER, MICHAEL SECKERSON, HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED. NO JUROR WHO WANTED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS HAD BEEN EXPOSED."

PROFESSOR GARY SLAPPER: THE TIMES;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Gary Slapper set out his views on this issue - raised by the imposition of fines for contempt on the Times and the foreman of the jury in the Keran Henderson case - in a column in the Times which ran on May 23, 2009.

"Research on how real juries decide cases is illegal," Professor Slapper began.

"That is a bizarre and unsustainable law in the age of openness," he continued.

"Taxpayers fund more than 800,000 juror sitting days a year: why should we not be allowed to discover how juries operate?

The 21st-century society is an open one. We no longer accept that important parts of government should be operated in dark secrecy. We have a Freedom of Information Act and we expect openness in all parts of the justice system, unless there is some compelling reason, such as national defence.

There is no more important feature of our democracy than the jury, the forum in which it is decided which of us are convicted and punished with up to life imprisonment. In 1957, Sir Patrick, later Lord, Devlin observed that one of the first things a dictator taking over Britain would do was abolish the jury, because “no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen”.

With anything that important, there is a need to know how it works. In so far as Section 8 of the Contempt of Court 1981 prevents research on how juries work, it is an anachronistic law and should be reformed urgently.

In the case against The Times, Lord Justice Pill said that the strength and value of the jury depend on “the open and frank expression of views between 12 people in the secrecy of the jury room” and that “confidence to express views in that way depends on the juror’s knowledge that the views will not be revealed outside the jury room”.

The reason for that principle is that by keeping secret what any named juror says, or how he or she votes, the system prevents blackmail and bribery. But that protection remained inviolate after the Times article because only a volunteer, Michael Seckerson, had been identified. No juror who wanted to remain anonymous had been exposed.

There is now a compelling argument to change the law. The jury is probably a good institution but we do not really know how it works. Experiments with simulated juries have generated some curious results. In 2007, a study suggested that jurors are less likely to return guilty verdicts against attractive defendants. In an American experiment involving 715 people, a truthful speaker was judged to be lying by 74.3 per cent of the subjects and a lying witness was judged to be truthful by 73.7 per cent.

A Crown Court prosecution can be proven only if it is made “beyond a reasonable doubt”. So it is remarkable that if we ask ourselves whether we are sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury system itself works well, the answer is one worthy of Alice in Wonderland: we do not know and it is illegal to find out.

The author is director of the Open University law programme."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

UP-DATE; KERAN HENDERSON CASE: (20); TIMES TO APPEAL CONTEMPT VERDICT, GUARDIAN REPORTS; JURY FOREMAN APOLOGIZES TO COURT; RESERVES RIGHT TO APPEAL;

"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;

BREAKING NEWS: HENDERSON CASE: (19) FINES IMPOSED; COURT SAYS NO PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY EXPOSING RELIANCE ON EXPERT EVIDENCE IN "SHAKEN BABY" CASES

"THEY (THE TIME'S LAWYERS) POINTED OUT THERE HAD BEEN NO DAMAGE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; NO INDIVIDUAL JUROR WAS IDENTIFIED; NO INDIVIDUAL'S OPINIONS WERE DISCLOSED, AND 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."

PA MEDIAPOINT:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A British on-line media publication has reported that fines have been imposed on juror Michael Seckerson and on The Times after the Court rejected a defence that it was in the public interest to report on the dangers related to excessive reliance on expert medical testimony in "shaken baby" cases;

Ironically, as reported yesterday on this Blog, Keran Henderson, whose conviction jury foreman Seckerson opposed, was recently released from prison after serving about half of her three year sentence, pending an appeal to be heard in December - an encouraging sign that she is moving towards outright exoneration;

The PA Mediapoint story appeared earlier today under the heading, "Times hit with £15,000 contempt fine for jury story."

"The Times was fined £15,000 today for contempt of court in disclosing "secrets of the jury room" after a manslaughter trial," the story begins;

"Jury foreman Michael Seckerson, who provided the information to the newspaper, was fined £500," the story continues;

"Both are to seek permission to appeal to the House of Lords against the High Court's finding of contempt, announced last week.

The case was brought by Attorney General Baroness Scotland QC under Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, which bans disclosure of "votes cast, statements made, opinions expressed or arguments advanced" by members of a jury in their deliberations.

Seckerson, 66, a retired lecturer at East Berkshire College, was one of two jurors who dissented from the 10-2 majority verdict in the case of Keran Henderson, a child minder convicted of the manslaughter of a child in her care, 11-month-old Maeve Sheppard.

Henderson, who was jailed for three years, is appealing against her conviction.

Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Sweeney heard that, on 19 December 2007, five weeks after the Reading Crown Court trial, The Times published articles by its legal editor, Frances Gibb.

The articles reported that two jurors were questioning the verdict and the role played in the trial by complicated evidence from expert medical witnesses.


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.

Today, Seckerson, who lives near Maidenhead, Berkshire, apologised to the court while reserving the right to seek leave to appeal.

Lawyers for The Times said it 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 House of Lords.

They pointed out there had been no damage to the administration of justice; no individual juror was identified; no individual's opinions were disclosed, and 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.

Lord Justice Pill 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".

The Attorney General was awarded £27,426 costs, which fall to be paid by The Times because Mr Seckerson was legally-aided and the judges ruled that costs should not be enforced against him without leave of the court.

The newspaper said in a statement: "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 court's judgment were not reversed by the House of 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"."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BREAKING NEWS: KERAN HENDERSON CASE: (17): JURY FOREMAN WHO SPOKE OUT AGAINST "EXPERT" EVIDENCE FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT, THE TIMES REPORTS:

"SECKERSON WAS A JUROR IN THE 2007 CASE OF KERAN HENDERSON, A CHILDMINDER FROM IVER HEATH IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.

SHE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF THE MANSLAUGHTER OF 11-MONTH-OLD MAEVE SHEPPARD BY A 10-2 MAJORITY - WITH SECKERSON BEING ONE OF THE TWO DISSENTERS."

THE TIMES:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Times reported earlier today that the dissenting foreman of the split jury that convicted Keran Henderson has, along with the paper, been found guilty of contempt;

"A jury foreman who broke the law banning the disclosure of jury room deliberations has been found guilty of contempt of court," the story, published under the heading "Jury foreman found guilty of contempt" and the sub-heading "Keran Henderson was convicted of manslaughter on a 10-2 majority," begins;

"Michael Seckerson told The Times newspaper how a majority verdict was reached in the case of a childminder who was accused of manslaughter," the story continues;

"But two High Court judges ruled that the "robust and highly valued" jury system depended on jurors' privacy.

Seckerson and The Times' publishers will now face a fine or prison term.

The Times articles, written by legal editor Frances Gibb, said that two jurors had raised concerns about the complex testimony of expert medical witnesses which was crucial during the trial.

It reported: "The 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."

It was also said that the medical evidence was "overwhelming", that the majority voted guilty "because it could do no other".

"Ultimately the case was decided by laymen and laywomen using that despicable enemy of correct and logical thinking, that wonderfully persuasive device, common sense," the paper wrote.

The case against Seckerson and the newspaper was brought by Attorney General Baroness Scotland under Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, which bans disclosure of "votes cast, statements made, opinions expressed or arguments advanced" by members of a jury in their deliberations.

The defendants attempted to use Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which guarantees freedom of expression - to argue that contempt proceedings were unjustified.

They also argued that the press had a right to keep the public informed about court proceedings.

However, on Wednesday Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Sweeney agreed that contempt laws had been broken.

Lord Justice Pill said the jury system depended on the open and frank deliberations in secret, without any individual fearing that their potentially unpopular views might become public.

The judge said he accepted that Ms Gibb had sought legal advice before publication and that it was given in good faith. He also accepted that Seckerson had a genuine concern about the use of expert testimony.

But the court ruled that he should not have disclosed the approach taken to the evidence by other jurors.

The judges were asked to make "orders of committal" - meaning a jail sentence or a fine - against Seckerson and the publishers. The case has been adjourned until 22 May.

Henderson was jailed for three years, but will appeal against her conviction later this month."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;