Petition of Elizabeth Howden to the Nobile Officium

Petition to the Nobile Officium:- On 27 February 2015, at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, the petitioner was found to be in contempt of court and fined £500. Here the petitioner appealed against that finding and sought recall of the conviction. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the sheriff had erred in law in holding the petitioner in contempt. The circumstances were that on 23 February 2015 the petitioner was balloted as a juror. Prior to being balloted all unempanelled jurors were advised by the sheriff clerk not to make any enquiries on social media about the case. Once selected the petitioner, along with the other balloted jurors, was asked by the trial sheriff whether they knew the accused or anyone connected to the case. The jury were sworn in and the sheriff thereafter reiterated the instruction to the jury not to make any enquiries in relation to the case. Following a short adjournment, the sheriff repeated in her introductory remarks to the jury that they should not make any enquiries of their own into the case. They were also instructed, as they were at the end of each day of evidence, that they should not discuss the case with anyone outwith their number. On the second day of the trial a Crown witness, RM, gave evidence. On the morning of the third day, the sheriff was informed by the sheriff clerk that the petitioner, the night before, had checked Facebook because she thought she knew the witness’s sister. The petitioner had not mentioned this when the witness RM started to give his evidence or when he concluded his evidence at the end of the second day. The clerk had learned of the petitioner’s actions because she had informed him with a view to bringing the matter to the attention of the court. In the sheriff’s chambers, in the presence of the sheriff clerk, the sheriff asked the petitioner why she had accessed Facebook having been told not to do so. The petitioner explained that she thought she knew the witness RM as he was the brother of her friend and she wanted to check to see if it was him and, after confirming that it was, she recalled she had said hello to him on a couple of occasions previously, however, she considered that she could remain impartial as a juror in the trial. Thereafter, however, the petitioner was removed from the jury and was told to leave and return to court on 27 February 2015 with legal representation as the sheriff was considering the question of her contempt. On 27 February 2015 the petitioner was represented by a solicitor and the sheriff found the petitioner in contempt of court as she considered the petitioner’s actions to have been a wilful defiance of a court order and required to be dealt with seriously. The sheriff decided against imposing a sentence of imprisonment because of the limited research undertaken and that she had volunteered the information herself to the sheriff clerk and the sheriff imposed a fine of £500. Here it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner checked the Facebook profile of the sister of the witness RM simply in order to confirm whether he was known to her, that she made no enquiry into the nature of the charge or the allegations in the indictment, that the petitioner’s conduct did not amount to a contempt of court, that the sheriff erred in law in holding that the petitioner was in contempt of court and that finding should be recalled. Here the court dismissed the petition. The court considered that any deliberate and avoidable disobedience of an order or other clear instruction of the court amounts to a contempt of court. The only question that had to be considered by the sheriff in deciding whether there had been a contempt was whether what the petitioner had done was something the trial sheriff had specifically told the jurors not to do and, in instructing the jury not to make enquiries in relation to the case, the petitioner deliberately disobeyed it and was accordingly in contempt of court.