HM Attorney General v Davey

Factual and Procedural Background

Her Majesty's Attorney General filed two applications seeking committal orders for contempt of court against two respondents who served as jurors in separate Crown Court trials. The first respondent, referred to as Mr. Davey, posted a message on a social media platform expressing his views on the case he was trying, while the second respondent, Mr. Beard, was alleged to have conducted internet research related to the case he was serving on. Both respondents denied contempt.

Mr. Davey was summoned for jury service in a Crown Court trial involving a charge of sexual activity with a child. During the trial, he posted a message on his social media account indicating hostility towards paedophiles and his excitement about serving as a juror. After being confronted, he denied posting the message but later admitted to it during a police interview. The Attorney General sought a committal order on the basis that his conduct breached judicial directions and compromised his impartiality.

Mr. Beard served as a juror in a lengthy trial involving conspiracy to defraud and money laundering charges. Approximately five weeks into the trial, it was reported that he had disclosed to fellow jurors information obtained through internet research, specifically a figure related to the number of investors involved in the case. This led to the discharge of the entire jury. Mr. Beard denied conducting internet research or breaching directions, but the Attorney General sought committal proceedings based on the allegations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the respondents committed acts or omissions calculated to interfere with or prejudice the due administration of justice, constituting contempt of court.
2. Whether the respondents had the requisite intent to interfere with or prejudice the administration of justice.
3. Whether the judicial directions given to jurors regarding discussion of the case and use of the internet were sufficiently clear and binding to support committal for contempt.
4. Whether the discharge of the jury in the case involving the second respondent was justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent Mr. Davey's Arguments

• Mr. Davey argued that his conduct did not create a real risk of interference with the administration of justice and that he remained true to his oath.
• He contended that his social media posting merely expressed a general dislike of sexual crimes against children and was not intended to be taken seriously or to discuss the evidence.
• He asserted that the materials provided to jurors, such as the booklet, video, speeches, and notices, were not judicial directions and thus did not prohibit his conduct.
• He denied any intention to breach directions or interfere with justice.

Respondent Mr. Beard's Arguments

• Mr. Beard denied conducting any internet research related to the case and denied breaching the judge’s directions.
• He claimed that the information about the number of investors came from evidence or other sources, not from internet research.
• He argued there was no real risk of interference with justice and that the discharge of the jury was unnecessary.
• He denied any intention to interfere with the administration of justice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191; [1974] AC 273	Established that contempt requires proof of an act or omission calculated to interfere with or prejudice the due administration of justice, with a real risk rather than a remote possibility.	Used to define the standard of proof and threshold for contempt in relation to juror conduct.
AG v Newspaper Publishing Ltd [1988] Ch 333	Clarified that intent to interfere with justice must be proved but can be inferred from circumstances; intent is distinct from motive or desire.	The court relied on this to infer intent from the respondents' conduct and circumstances.
Attorney General v Dallas [2012] 1 WLR 991	Outlined four elements establishing contempt where a juror deliberately disobeys a judge’s order: knowledge of the direction, appreciation that it is an order, deliberate disobedience, and risk of prejudice to justice.	Applied to assess whether the respondents knowingly and deliberately breached judicial directions regarding jury conduct.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming the established legal principles for contempt, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent committed acts calculated to interfere with justice and intended such interference. The court examined the evidence concerning Mr. Davey's social media posting, finding that despite his youth and claimed immaturity, he understood his duties as a juror and deliberately disregarded them by publicly expressing prejudicial views about the defendant. The language used was deemed to show clear intent to interfere with justice, and the posting resulted in his discharge from the jury, thus prejudicing the trial.

The court rejected Mr. Davey's argument that the materials provided to jurors were not directions, holding that these materials were authoritative reminders issued under court authority and that the directions were lawful and proportionate under human rights standards.

Regarding Mr. Beard, the court accepted the testimony of witnesses who reported his internet research and communication of extraneous information to fellow jurors. The court found Mr. Beard's account to be fabricated and determined that he deliberately breached the judge’s directions by conducting prohibited research. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to discharge the jury, concluding that the research and sharing of information posed a real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. Although external pressures on Mr. Beard were acknowledged, they did not excuse his conduct.

The court noted inconsistencies and ambiguities in the language used in jury instructions but emphasized the importance of clear warnings and suggested that relevant bodies review and standardize such materials to prevent future breaches.

Holding and Implications

The court held that both respondents committed contempt of court by deliberate acts calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice and intended such interference.

Mr. Davey’s conduct in posting prejudicial comments on social media while serving as a juror constituted contempt.

Mr. Beard’s conduct in conducting internet research and sharing extraneous information with fellow jurors likewise constituted contempt.

The direct consequence of the court’s decision is the committal proceedings against both respondents. The court did not establish new legal precedent but reinforced existing principles regarding juror conduct, contempt, and the necessity of clear judicial directions. The opinion also highlighted the need for improved clarity in jury instructions to prevent similar breaches in the future.