The Scottish Sunday Herald is reporting (story not online) that a woman who served on the jury during the trial of HMA Vs Thomas and Gail Sheridan has "posted confidential details of the case on Facebook and claimed the socialist politician is innocent"
The story, by Paul Hutcheon, goes on to claim that the woman described her fellow jurors as "pure b*******" on a public facebook group adding that she wanted to be at court when Mr Sheridan is sentenced "too support you all the way pal." There are also other quotes in the piece that Mr Hutcheon alleges came from the unnamed "jurors's" personal Facebook page. The report also says that the facebook post concluded by the person concerned "identifying where she sat during the trial."
The article also records the view of a "Senior Scottish Lawyer" stating that this is a breach of the Contempt of Court act 1981 and that the person concerned could face serious consequences "including the possibility of a custodial sentence"
Monday Update
While the original Sunday Herald article is not still not online, today's Herald have published a follow up piece on this subject this morning headlined "Sheridan juror could face jail" that can be found Here
The Scottish Daily Record has also covered the story, that link is Here
83 comments:
We will have to wait and see if the "Juror" was really a member of the Jury!!
I'm biased myself obviously James, but the posts are starting to come across as a little like spin and biase themselves these days.
I'll go into why later when I have more time.
I'll welcome your feedback Jessica.
"The story, by Paul Hutcheon" who was a witness for AP.
There is so much spin it is hard to believe a word that is printed by any of these newspapers.
Hello Anon, you may be getting mixes up with another journalist, Paul Sinclair, who did give evidence for the Crown.
http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/2010/11/paul-sinclair.html
Best Regards
James
Did get mixed up James apologies. All very confusing.
Hi James, I only found out about your blog on the day of the verdict, I had been avidly following the evidence on the BBC website during the trial and wish I'd know about your reports from the beginning. I'm now in the process of back reading all of them and finding them truly excellent. For a former SSP activist, you appear very impartial in what you report.
I know you've probably explained elsewhere but why did you leave the SSP in 2004? Was it connected in any way with the NoW revelations?
I'm glad you're still updating, I look forward to enjoying your future posts.
Hello anon, thanks for the kind words. The reason I left the SSP in 04 was nothing political, I went to New Zealand that year and ended up staying for six years (it's a pretty nice place)
Best Regards
James
Two points:
Firstly, if true, this juror was in the minority, and thus her view of the evidence, no matter how strongly held, cannot hold sway over the majority one. In every majority verdict there must by definition be a number of jurors who disagree with the verdict.
Secondly, Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is completely clear -
"Confidentiality of jury’s deliberations.
1)Subject to subsection (2) below, it is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.
(2)This section does not apply to any disclosure of any particulars—
(a)in the proceedings in question for the purpose of enabling the jury to arrive at their verdict, or in connection with the delivery of that verdict, or
(b)in evidence in any subsequent proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to the jury in the first mentioned proceedings,
or to the publication of any particulars so disclosed."
(edited by JD)
If anyone does have a link to the comments in question could they post it here or email it?
Thanks
James
Anonymous said 1.13
We will have to wait and see if the "Juror" was really a member of the Jury!!
Voice of Reason - can you advise if it is also an offence to pose as a member of the jury and to make comments such as those which have been made?
Experienced cat-herder required.
No previous legal experience necessary.
James - I know that you are concerned to avoid contempt of court because you are quite strict ion your comments policy.
Why then would you be considering linking to comments allegedly made by a juror and risk being in contempt due to an action which amounts to "disclosing ... any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings."
If you are to maintain an impartial tone and avoid contempt in this blog then I don't see how you could post such a link when you have been quite strict about comments from other perpsectives.
my view is that it does not matter which court case it is, a juror has rules to follow, this is dreadful, if this person had a problem then they are entitled to raise it directly with the judge.
This is shocking the behaviour of everyone involved with this case is beyond belief.
Hello Bunc, fair point, however I was not intending to link or publish the contents of said comment it is just as two people have mentioned they have seen it I wanted to have a look at it myself.
Best Regards
James
Thanks anon, agree with your sentiments too.
All the best
James
I have to say my respect for the journalist behind this story has sunk to a new low. He could have had a quiet word with the judge who could have had a quiet word with the juror, but no he wanted a front page splash and didn't care how he got it. Now someone is in serious trouble just for expressing an opinion in a forum they thought was private.
Sickened, when you confide in a journalist you confide in the world.
Why do so many people apparently have so much difficulty with this exceedingly simple fact? Including, it seems, those inexplicably tempted to engage in sex with them whether in the individual events or the relay.
" expressing an opinion in a forum they thought was private."
I may be old but I'm not dim - who said Faceblurt was private???
I have to say, I agree with Jessica. Don't negate your excellent work with bias.
Where's the link to the Herald story about one of the 'new witnesses' story already not adding up?
Why can't you just print what was printed in the Herald, James? My fragile 80-year-old gran wants to read this but doesn't want to risk a broken hip or death by going out in the ice. She said: "But that nice Mr Doleman will print it on his excellent blog", what am I supposed to tell her now, James? That that nice Mr Doleman is a f!"%^& bawbag?
The Defence were keen enough to use people's Facebook comments against them during the trial.
You'd think a juror would be aware of this and be more circumspect.
If you could tell your fragile old Gran Anonymous, that I'd be happy to link to the full story of it was online but as it is not I'd rather not breach copyright by posting a transcript.
All the best
James
"Where's the link to the Herald story about one of the 'new witnesses' story already not adding up"
Hello anon, that has been added as an update to the original post below.
Best Regards
James
james i put up a link that gives a little bit of the herald story re the juror. its on that other thread we were debatng in.
Well, James. My fragile 80-year-old gran has just returned from a treacherous 4 mile round trip to the shop to return with a much prized and sought after copy of the Sunday Herald and to be honest it's a damp squib of a read if ever there was one.
You could have went on her behalf anon!
lol James, but then I would be risking broken bones or death... or worse. Gran is a tough old cookie, she has been through two world wars. Besides, it wasn't worth £1.30 of gran's pension money.
It seems really weird for someone to attack the journalist for doing this story. It's definitely in the public interest. There are good reasons - and this is to protect everyone involved in criminal proceedings - that the jury deliberations must remain secret.
Not everything you read in the newspapers is true ;)
I thought you said your gran was 80. The first world war ended in 1918. Teling lies on a perjury blog. tsk tsk
Anonymous 12.06 look here - cut the Gran a bit of slack.......... She's lived thru two wars so she sometimes gets forgetful about her age. There are 3 witnesses who remember seeing her in WW1, she spoke to them on the Dover - Calais ferry outside the cafe in 1916. In fact one of them made a recording of it but they say gran sounds awfully like Grace Fields.
Anonymous said...
Not everything you read in the newspapers is true ;)
nor in court it seems.......
This is highly irresponsible journalism. The journalists involved should have refrained from making these comments even more public and advised the judge and/or the person involved. In their pursuit of the story they have compromised the jury and have jeopardised the court decision. This could lead to serious implications and a possible mistrial.
As it stood, the juror's remarks on her social network could have caused her trouble, now that The Herald has made sure that millions of people have heard her views on the jury deliberations, it is far more serious.
One can only assume that the journalists involved are sympathetic to Sheridan and are trying to cause mischief.
But they will also face legal consequences now and have breached contempt laws.
@Victor English
I can see how the juror may have breached contempt laws, but how would a journalist have done so by publishing their publicly available comments?
I don't see how retrospectively revealing anything that happened in the jury room could result in a mistrial - in that case every single verdict could be perpetually at risk of mistrial. How could such a retrospective revelation be seen as having altered the course of the trial in any way?
whatsy.... said
How could such a retrospective revelation be seen as having altered the course of the trial in any way?
not this one but any future trial as jurors would have the thought of any of the deliberations and votes made public. it could influence how a juror votes they might go for not proven or not guilty for fear of being named as someone who voted for a guilty verdict.
whatsy it really undermines the system. the woman has made a big mistake. that is of course if it is really the juror that posted it of facebook? given the spelling maybe jurors should be subjected to some sort of literacy test, ok dawl, lol how the hell is that better than just putting doll?
my advice would be keep quiet and get the sentence out the way first and then kick off big time. unless mr s is going to try and be liberated on bail pending appeal? if thats the plan i think its another uphill fight.
Hello Victor, I agree with many of your points however I would doubt that this particular journalist could, in any way, be considered "sympathetic" to Mr Sheridan given the nature of some of his other articles last week (see for example "sheridan appeal in disarray" linked below.
Victor English,
what total bunkum. There's no way this will mean a mistrial. Do you not think the Sunday Herald will have legalled this story?
Peter's Frenz
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Law-and-Legal-Affairs-Ordinary.6684685.jp
one for you james
Peters Frenz and Whatsy,
I did not say that it WOULD lead to a mistrial, I said that it COULD lead to a mistrial. Here is a way in which that could happen.
Let's say the woman is charged with contempt, then she pleads not guilty, it goes to court where she has to detail what went on in the jury room. The other jurors would be called as witnesses. This would mean that any appeal from Mr Sheridan would be compromised and the case would be stuck in a position of the accused not being able to pursue his full rights to challenge the verdict through appeal. At that stage, the conviction would fall apart.
On the matter of the journalists - since the introduction of the Human Rights Act, newspapers have a duty to the public in the same way that a public body has. This means that evidence of a crime should be reported to the authorities and not published with an opinion attached.
In this case they have deliberately made a matter that could have been dealt with by deleting facebook comments and an apology, into a scandal that might result in other jury members coming forward to defend themselves against the allegations made by this juror. They have reported events within the jury room and tried to find out more. In my opinion, depending on how this develops, the journalists themselves, or the publisher that they work for, could face contempt charges.
If any other jurors now come forward, either to support or challenge what this woman has said, then I can see both of the above scenarios becoming reality.
If James is correct and the journalists are not pro-Sheridan, then they have inadvertently given him some hope. But it is hard to imagine that their lawyers didnt foresee the possible implications of publishing this story.
Hello Knock Knock, thanks for that, rather an ironic piece given recent events don't you think?
All the best
James
james apologies i thought you didnt put up the whatsy reply
regards
ps still lost re the irronic post???
@Victor English
I don't see any of your scenario as being relevant or likely, irrespective of any COULD/WOULD differentiation you care to make.
The issue may be whether the juror was indeed the person who posted on Facebook, but if that is true, it seems a prima facie case of contempt, irrespective of what actually went on in the jury room, making it difficult to see why any jurors would need to be called as witnesses. There is no room for doubt that jurors know full well that discussing jury deliberations is CoC.
Regarding the newspaper's role - if they shouldn't have reported it and just told the police, would the same apply to other crimes? Murder? What about a theft? Should they just ask the thief "return your swag and we'll say no more about it"?
@Knock knock: You've spent a lot of time replying to a point I didn't make. I'm aware revealing jury deliberations could affect future trials, but I don't see how it affects this particular trial.
Has it been confrimed that this woman really exists? Given all the underhanded things that have happened in this case, it is not beyond belief that this could be a made up story. Has anyone except this journalist seen the posts on facebook, has the woman been contacted by the police and her identiy confirmed or what? I see hundreds of facebook posts and members who are not real, ficticious characters depending on what is popular in news and media at the time....and of course any ones particular agenda.
The article in question could be seen in a few ways, pro TS, anti TS, anti TS posting it on FB to put pro TS jurors in a bad light, pro TS, posting on fB to make it look lie anti TS playing games, you just never know ;)
I would be interested to hear of any precedent where a juror discussing the verdict after it had been delivered resulted in a mistrial.
Whether real or an imposter, the level of literacy says a lot about the sad state of Scottish education.
Re Contempt of Court:
Some comments above seem to be missing the point here.
The jury has reached a verdict, which has been assented to in open court and recorded by the Clerk of Court.
The offence under the 1981 Act is committed by disclosing matters that took place in the jury room. Either this person is a juror or she is not. Either she disclosed matters that are protected by law or she did not. Matters of contempt are for the court to investigate, so the prospect of a trial where other jurors give evidence is inconceivable. For the juror to say "yes I was on the jury, and yes I posted comments about jurors on Facebook but they were lies" would still be a contempt of court.
Whatsy: There was a very unusual English case in 1993 (R v Stephen Young) where a retrial was ordered when it emerged that jurors used a Ouija board to contact the deceased when placed in an hotel overnight. That's not the most compelling precedent here, and attempts to investigate jurors conduct post-trial virtually never succeed
All interesting stuff, however if I could just point out we are not "post trial" the case is still live. I've been looking for a precedent to this and cannot find anything.
@ voice_of_reason so in your considered opinion there is only a very slim chance of any of the jurors standing trial for perjury?
Further to my last post. The Appeal Court last considered this issue in February 2007 in Gary Ready v HMA, where a juror wrote privately to the defence solicitor expressing concerns about the fairness of the verdict in that he felt three jurors had not listened to the evidence.
The letter was brought to the attention of the trial judge (again in private) and an appeal marked. Having reviewed the relevant law, the court refused to direct investigation, as there was no evidence beyond one juror's opinion that the jury had not considered the case.
The position in the present case looks somewhat weaker, in that the juror did not express her concerns to the court.
RE: Consequences for Appeal
Since the trial we have had:
- the NOTW claiming the police are going to charge various key defence witnesses with perjury (that the police deny ever saying);
- the exposure of the scandal of the unauthorised release of important evidence (videos) to the BBC (and others?)apparently WHILST the trial was going on;
- an attack piece produced by the BBC on Sheridan based on those recordings.
- jury deliberations being apparently recorded on Facebook;
- this Facebook matter being openly reported in the Herald and the Record INCLUDING THREATS OF JAIL TO THE JUROR for criticising the verdict;
- the Herald openly attacking the credibility of potential new appeal witnesses.
This is all a clear attempt in my view to continue to intimidate Sheridan; his alibi witnesses and any potential witnesses; and undermine his appeal.
I cannot see how Sheridan can hope to get a fair appeal when these powerful interests hold sway in Scotland and act in this way.
The message is going out across th eland -appear for Sheridan and you will be harassed and threatened by the media; your police statements will be leaked to the (BBC) and you will likely be charged with perjury.
Is this continued witchunting of Sheridan including threats against his wife, his friends, family and supporters and potential witnesses the best use of public money?
Is it just?
Is this whole process safe if it is not able to be challenged without such benign influence affecting the appeal process?
No doubt Holyrood will be taking a look at this and ask that at least the relevant publically funded bodies of the eg. the Crown office and the BBC are held to account for this shambles.
Many newspapers editors say jail is the only outcome of this process for Sheridan.
If they are able to say this by way of balance we should be able to say that there are alternatives.
Court bail, pending appeal, would be a fairer way to deal with this whole shambles justly is an example.
Assuming for the moment that the postings really were from a juror, then after sentencing (and not before) it is likely that Lord Bracadale will require the juror to appear before him with legal representation to answer to a charge of contempt of court.
If it is admitted, then the court will consider sentence. If it is denied, the allegation and any investigation into it will be conducted by another judge. As it is contempt of court, it is for the court to determine the precise procedure appropriate to the case.
There's no issue of perjury, but every juror swore an oath at the start to "well and truly try the accused and give a true verdict according to the evidence". Thus any juror with a preconceived or biased view should state this at the start and ask to be replaced.
With respect Voice of Reason I think that is a stretch. There is no evidence that this "juror" had any pre-conceived opinion before the case opened only that she reached an opinion at some point. So I'd suggest there are no grounds for conclusion of a breach of the oath.
I think it's important to accept that the only person for whom the actions of this juror will have any consequences is the juror, herself.
Peter, surely not more conspiracy theories. The 'juror' would not have been discussed in the press if she had used her brain and not posted on facebook. The new witness would not have been discussed in the press if she hadn't broadcast her claim as to why she could give an alibi (giving media chance to check up on the 'facts'). TS wouldn't be contemplating his fate if he hadn't gone to a sex club and lied about it in a defamation trial instigated by him. I am heartily sick of the no blame culture we seem to have developed in this country. Its about time people started acting like the adults they are supposed to be and accept responsibility for their own actions. These people have all contributed to what you call the shambles, which was in fact a very long criminal trial in front of a jury who decided that TS is guilty.
Timje to accept the inevitable.
James: I'm not suggesting the juror did breach her oath; however, writing to the accused on a public forum "Hubby is 1000% behind you and so am i dawl ok i really think strong for you dawl and youre going too appeal against these idiots" and suggesting an intention to attend the sentencing diet to "support you all the way" is, if true, unusual behaviour for someone required by law to demonstrate impartiality.
Even assuming this is genuine, which it may not be, there may of course have been a genuine misunderstanding, and of course at this stage no contempt proceedings have commenced, so it is still possible that no action will be taken.
Peter:
"this Facebook matter being openly reported in the Herald and the Record INCLUDING THREATS OF JAIL TO THE JUROR for criticising the verdict"
With respect, that is not correct. At this time no procceedings for contempt have been commenced, so there is no "threat of jail", merely an observation that an imprisonable offence of breaching the confidentiality of the jury (NOT "criticising the verdict") may perhaps have been committed.
Whatsy and VofR are ruling out the possible, as they assume that this woman does not want to have her day in court, that she is guilty of any charge, or that other jurors might now come forward.
There are many scenarios, of which I suggested one, where this could interfere with due process. In this country people have the right to defend themselves against charges, we do not just accept that a case is a done deal.
We do not yet know what this woman's motivation is and how far she will go. Her comments that other jurors were '"scumbags" might hint at specific problems inside the room.
We know nothing yet other than that a woman claiming to be a juror has spoken out on a public site.
It is ludicrous to rule out scenarios that may arise. If the person who is accused of being a "scumbag" reacts by making her own statement, if this woman decided to go to a lawyer and make a statement about the conduct of other jury members, then the Crown have a real problem and a mistrial is very possible.
I am only speculating, not predicting. But it is far from clear whether this matter is over as it stands.
As I said, the journalists involved have acted irresponsibly, this is still a live case and, I believe, the Crown sent a reminder to editors this morning to remind them of this. By publishing this in papers, before the sentencing, the press have caused problems, the extent of which we do not yet know.
Whatsy and VoR point to the most likely scenario, but that does not mean that it is the only scenario. The Herald journalists have made the other scenarios a possibility.
Victor English:
The law on this is absolutely clear. Motivation is irrelevant - if this woman was on the jury and did post about it on Facebook then there is a clear breach of Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Whether the court will take action or not remains to be seen.
Anyone who goes to a lawyer to complain about other jury members WILL be told that they cannot discuss anything that happened in the jury room. The Court of Appeal has made the limits on investigation into jurors' conduct very clear in the case of Ready v HMA.
There is quite simply no legal possibility whatsoever of this juror's actions resulting in a retrial.
Hello yulefae, that is an interesting point but I'm sure you can understand why I can not post it.
All the best
James
VofR, you seem to be intent on ruling out the potential upshot of the journalist's actions. I would imagine that the scenario you describe is far more likely, but would not rule out the possibility of a reaction from other jurors.
To be called a "scumbag" in the Daily Record and Sunday Herald is not a nice thing and the jurors will know who is being referred to. This might also mean that other jurors who support this woman's position could come forward. That is what I mean by motivation. If something untoward went on the jury room, this woman's motivation might be to spark a reaction.
The journalists involved were irresponsible and this is why the Crown were moved to issue a warning to Editors. The possibility of a mistrial lies in the potential of the reaction to the contempt and this womans further actions.
My anger is with the journalists, my fears are based on the surprise jury verdict. That this has been followed by such an angry outburst from a juror makes me think that there is an insecurity in the air.
The best result would be the woman quickly deleting her comments, and facing the judge very soon and accepting a reprimand for her actions. The longer that we have the comments in public view and Editors ignoring the fact that this is still a live case, the more the potential for a reaction from this or other jurors.
And this woman DOES have the right to defend herself against allegations, she might be the victim of 'facebook' impersonation, or other mischief. That scenario could open up the question of jury interference or could be simply mischief from a friend, as well as giving her a chance to challenge a 'contempt' charge.
Ready is a case like Mirza and others that refers to ignoring judges instructions or not deliberating properly. If that is the case here then your scenario would be correct. But, as you know, the Human Rights act 1998 conflicts with those rulings and, in this case, we have yet to see what this woman's grievance is. Other more serious allegations from within a jury room would require a different response.
I may be wrong, but I think that this has taken on a different mood since it moved from being on a facebook page to be being in the mainstream press. My hope is that it is dealt with swiftly lest other problems develop.
I would hope that Bracadale would contact the newspapers involved directly and issue them with a warning to restrain themselves until sentencing, on top of the general instruction issued last night.
James, Bernard Ponsonby just mentioned the case i was talking about on the six oclock STV news
Hello, had to delete a couple of comments there, if we could recall this is a possible legal case.
Thanks
James
I agree with Mr English. The sooner the juror (if she be one) is hauled before Lord Bracadale the better. This will surely deter anyone tempted to indulge in a similar outburst.
Now my fellow blogcommetos; you have yet to emulate my hideous, twisted countenance as I feast on the downfall of another celebrity. I would not trust you lot to vote on X Factor let alone Strictly Come Dancing. Big Brother would have died a mercifully quick natural death if viewers were forced to wade through all your miserable winges before voting for Tommy. All that money splurged on reality tv and you load of ******** and **********************
****, *******: think it's cool to natter on about your own
views instead of lapping up professional punditry.
You really should be ashamed of myself.
I read on facebook Tommy's big day on the 26th has been moved back to Glasgow. I want to be there to give my moral support, can anyone confirm if this is true and infact is it Edinburgh or Glasgow,
Anon 10:09 At the moment TS is set to appear in the High Court in Glasgow - subject to change of course.
Jamesie FYI - no-one has been hauled before Lord Bracadale so far on this matter.
Contained within a little red book given to those who have been cited for Jury Service is the following statement:-
Warning: It is an offence to pass on any information about statements made, opinions given, arguments put forward or votes cast by any member of the jury during their discussions, even long after the trial has ended. If you do so, you may be find or sent to prison.
Its not the first time in this trial that someone is in hot water for plastering their thoughts on facebook without seeming to realise facebook is a public forum and you might as well be shouting your scribblings from the rooftops.
Hello anon, probably not the best idea to leave such abusive comments from that particular computer. I'm not going to make a complaint but I would note others may not be so tolerant about being abused through a college internet system.
all the best
James
Now now James. Students have as much right as the next person to be highly abusive. Let's not discriminate. :)
Are you still getting a lot of abusive comments even at this stage? You would think people would have learned by now that it's pointless.
I'll comment on possible bias after sentencing. Better safe than sorry.
Hello Jessica, the particular comment was from a repeat offender as it were so I thought I should yellow card him.
On bias, I have never claimed to be personally objective, like everyone else I have my own opinion about the case, it would be pretty impossible to sit in court for three months and not draw any conclusions. However what I do try and do is, as far as possible, keep my opinions out of my work and keep that as unbiased as possible.
I will be writing a post after sentence is passed giving my own views.
All the best
James
Look forward to reading your views after sentence passed.
How many Scots spell doll, dawl?
I think this FB thing is a fake.
I'm sure too that all jurors were suitably cautioned against going public on anything after the verdict since to do so could leave them facing contempt charges.
I agree with Jo G, everything about it is wrong, I had a good search for it as soon as it was mentioned and found nothing. Now it's in the news, that not only the posts have gone, but the poster has gone too, disappeared into thin air.
The Herald has mentioned this today, but the manner in which it is written is as if they have no idea where she has disappeared to, or who she is, surely a journalist would get every piece of info available...name, posts, check it all out before writing an article like the one they did. Interesting stuff ;)
I know that they can be easily faked, but why was a token "screen-shot" of these offending alleged posts published. And now it all has supposedly all just gone *poof*. My gut instinct says that we are being led a merry dance on this one.
One oF the critisisms of facebook is that accounts take 14 days to become deleted so it would be interesting to know how this one disappeared so easily.
It appears sick notes do not come cheap these days
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/11/phone-hacker-legal-glenn-mulcaire?CMP=twt_fd
Ouch. There does seem to be some increasing pressure on the NotW here. Let's hope all the fun is not just in the chase.
Were these two articles a joke? Who talks or writes like that, it must have been someone having a laugh as people do not talk like that.
Post a Comment