The ‘Times’ is justifiably proud of its law report coverage, but it is not every day that it figures in one of the reported cases. That happened this week when two High Court judges fined it for contempt of court in revealing how the jurors in a manslaughter trial reached their verdict.

Michael Seckerson, the jury foreman, was one of two jurors who dissented from the verdict in the case of Keran Henderson, a childminder, who was convicted for the manslaughter of 11 month old Maeve Sheppard while in her care, and jailed for three years. Their comments were published by the ‘Times’ in an article headlined “Jurors break silence to insist childminder did not kill baby”. In the article, the jurors, who were not named, expressed the belief that Henderson was wrongly convicted of killing the child by shaking her so violently that she was left blind and brain damaged. The contempt case was brought by the Attorney-General under Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The ‘Times’ and Mr Seckerson argued that contempt proceedings could not be justified in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, subject to exceptions such as the need to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. They said that there had been no damage to the administration of justice, no individual juror was identified, no individual’s opinions were disclosed and the articles were written in good faith, after taking legal advice. The heavy reliance placed on expert medical evidence in “shaken baby” cases made it a matter of public importance.

Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 states that:

“(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 judges said that it was not suggested that sub-section (2) had any bearing on this particular case. They explained the traditional arguments in favour of the total secrecy of the jury system. “Its strength and value depend on the open and frank expression of views between twelve people in the secrecy of the jury room. Confidence to express views in that way depends on juror’s knowledge that the views will not be revealed outside the jury room. Jurors should not be constrained by fears a juror would legitimately have if his friends and neighbours, and the general public, may come to know of his views, which could be unpopular views. If views were expressed in the hope of their being disclosed, or with an intention to disclose, that would also have a deleterious effect on the quality of deliberations”. Lord Justice Pill said that the court acknowledged the mitigating factors but had to impose penalties “sufficient to mark the seriousness of breaches of Section 8 and to deter others from following the example of this juror and this newspaper”. The ‘Times’ was fined £15,000 and Mr Seckerson £500. The Attorney-General was awarded £27,426 costs.

The full text of the judgement in Her Majesty’s Attorney General and Michael Alexander Seckerson and Times Newspapers Limited in the High Court of Justice, Administrative Division, (Case No: CO/12411/2008) can be found at:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1023.html

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, given Royal Assent last July, came into force on 6 April 2008. The Ministry of Justice has published an introduction to the new Act Understanding the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

The Act sets out a new offence for convicting an organisation where a gross failure in the way activities were managed or organised results in a person’s death, a stand-alone provision for prosecuting companies to complement offences primarily aimed at individuals. This will apply to a wide range of organisations across the public and private sectors. Under a new approach, courts will look at management systems and practices across the organisation, providing a more effective means for prosecuting the worst corporate failures to manage health and safety properly. Details of the offence are contained in s.1 of the Act:-

Corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide
1.(1) An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised-
(a) causes a person’s death, and
(b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.
1.(2) The organisations to which this section applies are-
(a) a corporation;
(b) a department or other body listed in Schedule 1;
(c) a police force;
(d) a partnership, or a trade union or employers’ association, that is an employer.
1.(3) An organisation is guilty of an offence under this section only if the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the breach referred to in subsection (1).
…
1.(5) The offence under this section is called-
(a) corporate manslaughter, in so far as it is an offence under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland;
(b) corporate homicide, in so far as it is an offence under the law of Scotland.

Enabling Provision: s.1 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Triable Status: Indictable only.
Max. Sentence on Indictment: Unlimited fine.

(see Criminal Offences Handbook (4th edition), ed M.Gribbin, available at legal bookshops or direct from Anya Designs Ltd)

The 2007 Act will mean that those who disregard the safety of others at work, with fatal consequences, are more vulnerable to very serious criminal charges. An organisation will be guilty of the new offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care to the deceased. A substantial part of the failure within the organisation must have been at a senior level. This includes both centralised, headquarters functions as well as those in operational management roles. The organisation’s conduct must have fallen far below what could have been reasonably expected.

For the full text of the Act go to www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/pdf/ukpga_20070019_en.pdf