Dawg's News Archive

Juror admits contempt of court over Facebook contact

Joanne Fraill, Jamie Sewart arriving at the High Court on 14 June 2011 Fraill (left) initiated the
Facebook exchanges after Sewart was cleared

A juror, who contacted a defendant
via Facebook, has admitted contempt of court in the first case of its kind in
the UK involving the internet.

London’s High Court heard that Joanne Fraill, 40, contacted Jamie Sewart, 34,
who had already been acquitted in a drugs trial costing £6m in Manchester.

Because other defendants were still on trial, the judge decided to discharge
the jury, and the case collapsed.

Sewart was also found to be in
contempt.

She had admitted the online contact took place but denied it amounted to an
offence.

The case, brought by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, was heard by
the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr
Justice Holroyde.

Continue reading the main story

Analysis

image of Dominic Casciani
Dominic Casciani BBC
News home affairs correspondent


Last year, the Lord Chief Justice used a speech to effectively warn that
someone will end up behind bars if jurors use the internet to find out
information about cases they are trying.

That someone is Joanne Fraill, a previously hard-working woman of good
character who broke every rule in the book.

Her case and likely forthcoming jail sentence for Contempt of Court sets a
legal precedent because it is the first time that the judiciary has tackled what
many of their number suspect has been going on.

There are anecdotal stories of jurors digging around the internet to research
defendants and academic research found as many as 12% of jurors in big trials
could be doing so.

The finding against Fraill is a very public statement by the Lord Chief
Justice that just because it is easy to contact people online, it is
unacceptable to do so where it interferes with justice.

Sentencing is expected to take place on Thursday.

The maximum penalty for contempt is two years imprisonment.

Lord Judge told mother-of-three Fraill, from Blackley, Greater Manchester,
that she should expect to be sent to prison.

But he said he would not be able to decide on the length of the term until a
linked appeal against conviction brought by another defendant in the case – who
was potentially affected by her actions – was concluded.

He told Sewart, from Bolton, that any prison sentence on her would be
suspended because she has a three-year-old child from whom she had already been
separated during the crown court trial.

At the High Court hearing, Fraill admitted she had made online contact with
Sewart and discussed the case with her while the jury’s deliberations were
continuing.

She also admitted revealing details of the jury’s deliberations during that
online conversation – contrary to Contempt of Court Act 1981 – and conducting
internet research into a defendant whose case she was trying as a juror during
the trial.

That was despite the judge reminding all the jurors that they must decide the
case solely on the evidence given in court.

‘Home and
dry’

Fraill was on a jury in a case which had already been halted twice.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

All that note-taking was just killing time. lol. drew more
than I wrote”

End Quote Facebook comment by Joanne Fraill

On 3 August last year, the judge in the third trial of
the alleged drugs gang gave jurors the option of deciding the verdict by a
majority rather than unanimously.

But the High Court was told the trial was stopped the following day when
Sewart’s solicitor informed the court that his client and Fraill had been in
contact by Facebook.

The court heard the initial contact came after Fraill went on the social
networking website and tracked down Sewart, saying: “You should know me – I’ve
cried with you enough.”

Fraill was said by her lawyer to have felt “considerable empathy” for Sewart
as the trial “”gathered in momentum and intensity”.

“Can’t believe they had u on remand,” she said in another one of their
conversations, a transcript released by the court shows.

Fraill added she thought she recognised one of the other defendants and when
asked by Sewart how the jury was dealing with one of the outstanding charges
said: “Cant get anywaone to go either no one budging… don’t say anything cause
jamie they could cause miss trial”.

The two continued to talk about the case and used expressions such as “lol”
and other internet slang, as well as variants of spelling commonly used in such
messages.

Frail also said: “At least then yer all home n dry”.

And Sewart responded: “Ha ha, ur mad. I really appreciate everythin. If i cud
of kissed u all i would of done ha ha.”

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Her conduct, though reprehensible, was not calculated or
designed by her to subvert the trial process”

End Quote Peter Wright QC

She went on to say: “Keep in touch and I’ll get u a nice
pressie…”

The pair agreed to become Facebook friends after the trial.

Fraill also described her role on the jury in their conversations. “All that
note-taking was just killing time. lol. drew more than i wrote lol,” she
said.

Solicitor General Edward Garnier QC told the High Court that that contact and
discussion were in direct breach of the judge’s repeated directions to the jury
– and it constituted a contempt of court.

Peter Wright QC, for Fraill, said his client was terrified at the prospect of
prison and was distraught and inconsolable about what she had done.

He described her as a woman of completely unblemished character before she
“lost her senses” in the Facebook exchanges.

He said she only contacted Sewart because she saw in the younger woman’s life
her own.

“Her conduct, though reprehensible, was not calculated or designed by her to
subvert the trial process, although it is conceded that that was an inevitable
consequence of it,” he added.

Leaving court, Sewart said she was “massively relieved” to be told she would
not serve a custodial term.

She added: “I regret everything. She contacted me. My mind was in a
whirlwind. I had just been acquitted. When I sat back and thought about it I
realised I should report it and I did.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: