HM Attorney General v Seckerson & Anor [2009] EWHC 1023 (Admin) (13 May 2009)

HM Attorney General v Seckerson & Anor [2009] EWHC 1023 (Admin) (13 May 2009)

The disclosure by the first defendant of the 10-2 vote and the approach of the majority during jury deliberations constituted a breach of section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The publication of this information by the second defendants also constituted a breach. The secrecy of jury deliberations is a fundamental principle and the disclosures went beyond general comment, revealing particulars of deliberations. The restriction imposed by section 8(1) is compatible with Article 10 ECHR.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1023 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; First Defendant: Michael Alexander Seckerson; Second Defendants: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Committal for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; breaches of section 8(1) found against both defendants.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Jury Secrecy, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights, Section 8 Contempt of Court Act 1981
Criminal Law Media Law Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Jury Secrecy Freedom of Expression Human Rights Section 8 Contempt of Court Act 1981

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant

Michael Alexander Seckerson

First Defendant

Times Newspapers Limited

Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Committal for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 by disclosing particulars of jury deliberations
  2. 2 Whether such disclosure is compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The disclosure by the first defendant of the 10-2 vote and the approach of the majority during jury deliberations constituted a breach of section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The publication of this information by the second defendants also constituted a breach. The secrecy of jury deliberations is a fundamental principle and the disclosures went beyond general comment, revealing particulars of deliberations. The restriction imposed by section 8(1) is compatible with Article 10 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application granted; breaches of section 8(1) found against both defendants.

Orders

  • Declaration that both defendants breached section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.