A jury foreman and the publishers of The Times are facing the possibility of a jail sentence after being found guilty yesterday of contempt of court.
Two high court judges found that Michael Seckerson and Times Newspapers broke the strict law which bans the disclosure of the "secrets of the jury room".
The paper reported how the jurors in the trial of childminder Keran Henderson reached their decision in finding her guilty of the manslaughter of an 11-month-old child in 2007.
Seckerson, one of two jurors who dissented in a 10-2 majority verdict, contacted The Times to express his doubts about the conviction and the role played by evidence given by expert medical witnesses.
His revelations emerged in articles written by The Times's legal editor, Frances Gibb, in December 2007, Jurors question guilt of killer childminder and Jurors break silence to insist childminder did not kill baby. Seckerson was not named but was identified as the jury foreman.
He was quoted as saying: "A case relying on circumstantial evidence and forensic opinion based on evidential proof from other cases should never have reached a court...
"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 paper wrote.
A month later Seckerson identified himself by writing a bylined article for The Times, Juror speaks out - 'the court saw us as idiots'.
In his judgment yesterday, Lord Justice Pill said: "The disclosure of the 10-2 vote was a clear breach of section 8(1) [of the contempt of court act]."
The article was also judged by Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Sweeney to have revealed the jury's approach to the evidence put before them.
Lawyers for the newspaper, led by Gavin Millar QC, argued that freedom of expression, as set out under Article 10 of the European convention on human rights, gave the press the right to reveal what went on in judicial proceedings, as long as it did not prejudice or jeopardise the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
But the judges disagreed. The decision on whether there will be a jail sentence or fine will be taken on Friday next week. Millar said the publishers would seek leave to appeal.
Naturally enough, I'm with The Times over this matter. There is an absurd taboo in this country over what happens in jury rooms. And if, in speaking to a newspaper, a juror can help to put right an injustice, then that must be in the public interest.
Sources: The Times/BBC/Media Guardian
