CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 janvier 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 148 January 2012 Seckerson and Times Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 32844/10 and 33510/10 Decision 24.1.2012 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Newspaper and former jury member found guilty of contempt of court and fined for breach of secrecy of jury deliberations: inadmissible Facts – The first applicant was the foreman of the jury at the trial of a childminder found guilty of having shaken a baby in her care so violently that the infant died two days later. In late 2007, following the conviction of the childminder, he contacted The Times newspaper (the second applicant) and expressed his grave concerns about the trial and the conviction. The Times published two articles based on his comments. In particular, the articles contained the following two quotes: “...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.” and “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 two applicants were found guilty of contempt of court under section   8 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, which prohibited the disclosure of information regarding the deliberations of a jury. The first applicant was fined 500   pounds sterling (GBP). The second applicant was fined GBP   15,000 and ordered to pay costs of over 27,000 GBP. Law – Article 10: Rules imposing requirements of confidentiality of judicial deliberations played an important role in maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, by promoting free and frank discussion by those who were required to decide the issues which arose. It was therefore essential that jurors be free to air their views and opinions on all aspects of the case and the evidence before them, without censoring themselves for fear of their general views or specific comments being disclosed to, and criticised in, the press. Even an absolute secrecy of jury deliberations could not be viewed as unreasonable, given that any qualification would necessarily lead to an element of doubt which could undermine the very objective which the rule sought to secure. In the instant case, the published comments had revealed the opinions expressed by ten members of the jury at an early stage of a long deliberation, and the reference to “no going back” had indicated their firm intention not to change their minds. The reference to “despicable enemy of correct and logical thinking” had revealed the first applicant’s assessment of the opinions of and statements expressed by the majority members, and had constituted an accusation of incorrect and illogical thinking against them. The phrase “wonderfully persuasive device, common sense” had disclosed their approach to the evidence, and in particular that they had relied on common sense and not correct and logical thinking. The Court was accordingly satisfied that all of these disclosures had offended against the secrecy of the deliberations of the jury. Given that most of the content of the articles was not challenged, the Court was satisfied that the applicants had not been precluded from contributing to the debate on the use of expert medical evidence in trials at the relevant time. The fines imposed and the costs awarded as regards the second applicant were not insignificant. However, the Court did not consider them to be disproportionate in all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the revenues of the second applicant and the need to ensure that the sanctions imposed had a deterrent effect. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes