issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 059 (2016)
11.02.2016
Juror’s contempt of court conviction for researching defendant on
Internet in breach of judge’s direction: law was sufficiently clear
no. 38395/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
no violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned Ms Dallas’ conviction for contempt of court as a result of her conducting
Internet research in relation to the criminal case she was trying as a juror. Ms Dallas complained that
the common law offence of contempt of court had not been sufficiently clear.
The Court found in particular that the test for contempt of court applied in her case had been both
accessible and foreseeable. The law-making function of the courts had remained within reasonable
limits and the judgment in her case could be considered, at most, a step in the gradual clarification
of the rules of criminal liability for contempt of court through judicial interpretation. Any
development of the law had been consistent with the essence of the offence and could be
reasonably foreseen.
Principal facts
The applicant, Theodora Dallas, is a Greek national who was born in 1977 and lives in Luton
(England, UK).
On 4 July 2011 Ms Dallas attended jury service in the Crown Court. Before the case was opened the
judge gave a number of directions to the jury underlining the importance of deciding the case only
on the basis of what they saw and heard in the courtroom. The judge told the jury that they must
not speak to anyone about the case and must not go on the Internet. The trial commenced and, in
the course of the trial, evidence of the defendant’s previous conviction for assault was adduced. On
6 July 2011 one of the jurors informed the court usher that Ms Dallas had been on the Internet and
had found out about additional information, not adduced at trial, about the defendant’s previous
conviction, which she had shared with the jury. The trial judge was informed. On 8 July 2011, the
judge informed Ms Dallas of the allegation and told her that the matter would be referred to the
Attorney General and that there would be a police investigation. The trial was aborted.
On 2 December 2011, following permission from the Divisional Court, the Attorney General sought
an order of committal (to prison) against Ms Dallas for contempt of court for conducting Internet
research and then disclosing information to the jury. In her position statement, Ms Dallas accepted
that she had conducted an Internet search but denied a specific intent to impede or cause a real risk
of prejudice to the due administration of justice. On 19 January 2012 the application for committal
was heard and there was some discussion between the bench and counsel about the correct test for
contempt of court. Ms Dallas was found guilty and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment of which
she would serve three. Following the handing down of the judgment Ms Dallas sought leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Divisional Court had lowered the threshold for
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
