HM Attorney General v Seckerson & Anor

HM Attorney General v Seckerson & Anor

The court held that the disclosure of the 10-2 vote and the comments about the approach of the majority jurors to the evidence constituted a breach of section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, as they revealed particulars of votes cast and opinions expressed during jury deliberations. The principle of jury secrecy is central to the administration of justice, and it is not necessary to show actual harm or injustice in the case. The disclosures went beyond general comment and crossed the line into prohibited territory.

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; breach of section 8(1) found
Legal Topics
Jury Secrecy, Disclosure of Jury Deliberations, Freedom of Expression, Section 8 Contempt of Court Act 1981
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Media Law Jury Secrecy Disclosure of Jury Deliberations Freedom of Expression 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 3 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 (freedom of expression)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the disclosure of the 10-2 vote and the comments about the approach of the majority jurors to the evidence constituted a breach of section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, as they revealed particulars of votes cast and opinions expressed during jury deliberations. The principle of jury secrecy is central to the administration of justice, and it is not necessary to show actual harm or injustice in the case. The disclosures went beyond general comment and crossed the line into prohibited territory.

Court Disposition

Application granted; breach of section 8(1) found

Orders

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