Attorney General v Scotcher

Case [2005] UKHL 36
  1.   I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I agree with it. I would also dismiss the appeal.

    2. LORD HUTTON

    My Lords,

  2.   I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I agree with it and for the reasons which he gives I would also dismiss the appeal.

    3. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY

    My Lords,

  3.   This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("section 8(1)"), which provides:

    "(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."

The Facts

  •   In January 2000 the appellant, Keith Scotcher, was summoned for jury service at Blackfriars Crown Court. On the first day, like all the other potential jurors, Mr Scotcher was given a booklet entitled "You and Your Jury Service", which he read. Just below the list of Contents the booklet said this:

      • "Warnings are in grey boxes.

      You will find them on pages 1, 2 and 10.

      Please read them carefully."

    Page 1 included this warning:

      "Warning

      When you become a juror you must never discuss the case with anyone who is not a member of the jury. Talk about the case only in the jury room when all the jury are present."

    There was another warning on page 10:

      "Warning

      You must not talk about the case outside the jury room.

      You must not show or tell anyone details of:

      Y  statements made    Y  opinions given

      Y  arguments put forward  Y  votes cast

      by you or any other juror during the jury's deliberations.

      If you do, you will be in contempt of court and you may be sent to prison or have to pay a fine."

  •   The jurors were also shown a video, part of which said:

      • "It is a contempt of court, which may be punishable by imprisonment, to get or disclose the opinions of jurors or the way they voted in their deliberations."

    It went on to say:

      "Please remember that it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for anyone to disclose information about what is discussed in the jury room or the opinions of individual jury members about a case."

    There was a notice to the same effect in the jury room.

  •   The appellant was balloted to serve as a juror in a trial in which the two defendants were brothers. By the end of the trial on Friday 11 February, the jury had been reduced to eleven members. That afternoon the jury convicted both defendants by a majority of 10 votes to 1.

  •   The following day, the appellant wrote to the defendants' mother in these terms:

      • "Dear Mrs Anderson

      I was the one jury member who held out against the prosecution case…

    Continue reading Attorney General v Scotcher

    Sign in free to access the full text

    Details
    Case
    [2005] UKHL 36
    Decision Date

    CaseChat Overview and Summary

    AI summary not yet generated for this case.

    Orders

    Orders of the court

    Full text does not contain this section.

    Background

    Background to the litigation

    Full text does not contain this section.

    Evidence

    Evidence Before The Court

    Full text does not contain this section.

    Decision

    Reasons for decision

    Full text does not contain this section.

    Ratio Decidendi

    Legal Principle Established

    Full text does not contain this section.