RSS Feed
January 23rd, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
By
Emily Allen
Last updated at 5:01 PM on 23rd January 2012
Academic Theodora Dallas, 34, had told other jurors what her research had revealed about a defendant
A woman who carried out internet research at home while sitting on a criminal trial jury was jailed for six months for contempt of court today.
Academic Theodora Dallas, 34, discovered that defendant Barry Medlock had previously been accused of rape.
She passed the information on to fellow jurors who were trying him at Luton Crown Court on a charge of grievous bodily harm.
Her actions led to the trial, which took place in July 2011, being abandoned
Dallas, a psychology lecturer at the
University of Bedfordshire, was today sentenced by three judges at the High Court in London, including Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice.
She will serve three months and be on licence for the remainder of the term.
The judges refused Dr Dallas permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but she can still apply directly to the highest court in the land.
Contempt proceedings had been launched against her by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC.
Lord Judge said Dr Dallas had ‘deliberately disobeyed’ the trial judge’s instructions not to search the internet and added: ‘The damage to the administration of justice is obvious.’
Sentencing Dr Dallas, he said: ‘Misuse of the internet by a juror is always a most serious irregularity and an effective custodial sentence is virtually inevitable.’
The judge said her counsel Charles Parry had made a plea to the court to be merciful and impose a suspended sentence.
Rejecting the plea, Lord Judge said there was ‘no sufficient basis’ for suspension – ‘in this case an immediate custodial sentence is appropriate for the contempt which has been proved’.
Collapse: Defendant Barry Medlock was on trial accused of grievous bodily harm. He faced a re-trial and was jailed
Lord Judge said: ‘It is clear not merely that the defendant had indeed consulted the internet, and discussed Medlock’s previous conviction and the fact that it involved an allegation of rape, but also that the remaining jurors were extremely disturbed, to put it no higher, by what they had been told.
‘That, if we may say so, is greatly to their credit.’
He added: ‘They were obviously concerned to ensure that their responsibilities as jurors was properly discharged.
‘It also demonstrates that they had fully understood the prohibition against use of internet.’
WOMAN JAILED FOR EIGHT MONTHS FOR CONTEMPT
In June 2011, a 40-year-old woman was
given an eight-month jail term after becoming the first juror to be
prosecuted for contempt of court for using the internet.
Joanne Fraill, 40, admitted using
Facebook to exchange messages with Jamie Sewart, 34, a defendant already
acquitted in an ongoing multimillion-pound drug trial in Manchester in
2010.
Fraill, from Blackley, Manchester,
also admitted conducting an internet search into Sewart’s boyfriend,
Gary Knox, a co-defendant, while the jury was deliberating.
She was jailed after a hearing at the High Court in London before a panel of judges which included Lord Judge.
Lord Judge said the court had ‘no doubt’ that Dallas knew ‘perfectly well’ that the trial judge had directed her and the other members of the jury ‘in unequivocal terms’ that they should not seek information about the case from the internet.
There was also no doubt that she ‘appreciated that this was an order’ and that she ‘deliberately disobeyed the order’.
He added: ‘By doing so, before she made any disclosure to her fellow jurors, she did not merely risk prejudice to the due administration of justice, but she caused prejudice to it.
‘This was because she had sought to arm, and had armed herself, with information of possible relevance to the trial which, although not adduced in evidence, might have played its part in her verdict.’
The fact that the jury was ‘rightly discharged’ from returning a verdict, and a new trial ordered, meant that the ‘unfortunate complainant had to give evidence of his ordeal for a second occasion”.
Lord Judge added: ‘The time of the other members of the jury was wasted and the public was put to additional unnecessary expense. The damage to the administration of justice is obvious.’
Passing sentence, Lord Judge said: ‘Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror.’
Defendant Barry Medlock was accused
of torturing a man by beating him, setting him on fire and pouring
caustic soda and boiling water over him.
He was later re-tried in October, convicted and jailed, the High Court heard.
Attorney General Mr Grieve told BBC Radio 4’s World At One: ‘If a juror goes off and carries out research and obtains information that has never been put before the jury about the defendant then that is perfectly capable of influencing that juror.
‘Nobody in court will have had the ability to deal with that information, explain it, challenge it or do anything about it.
‘It is central to the fairness of our trial process that only what is heard in court should determine the jury’s verdict.’
Share this article:
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
-
Newest -
Oldest -
Best rated -
Worst rated
This is ridiculous, the lady made a mistake, but six months imprisonment is not justified, she is no danger to society and it is very unlikely she will repeat the crime. She may have wasted tax payers money, but isn’t sending her to prison wasting even more?
Report abuse
I thought the information the juror had found on the web should be disclosed by the prosecution anyway at some stage of the trial. The prosecutors and the police are very good at digging up the past of the defendant to build up and prove their case. Imprisonment is simply too harsh for the offence while I readily admit that she did commit contempt of court , but do you know how many police officers have lied under oath and committed perjury of justice? They escape score free and are still there enforcing the so called law.
Report abuse
Wait, this woman is getting more jail time than a 20 year old who hospitalised someone for a month? I don’t even…
Report abuse
Anyone any ideas has to how the judge would know if I had “researched” the person in the dock and I kept the info gained to myself? My vote on the guilty/not guilty would still be regard as “tainted” if ever it came out years later! There is an answer but not enough characters to explain here!
Report abuse
She attempted to deprive someone of a fair trial. Good enough then…jail her.
Report abuse
There was a programme on ITV late last year called I think The Jury, with Julie Walters. In that programme the jurors were shown to be allowed to convene their deliberations at their leisure, to correspond with the defendant, to send another to take their place,even researching the internet, and a few other howlers. Is it any wonder that the average juror now believes that he or she can do all these things?
Report abuse
What she did was wrong, especially sharing the information with other jurers but her sentence seems ridiculous if you consider that a woman who threw a grass into a man’s face walked off scott free. Obviously the jurer didn’t flutter her eyelashes at the judge.
Report abuse
People do reform, and get accused of other crimes later on. Knowing of these crimes could cause guilty verdicts even if that person is innocent.
However, I think it is laughable that she is given a similar sentence that someone who tortures and kills animals gets.
Report abuse
Yet another example of totally disproportionate official bullying. The police and courts always HAVE to demonstrate that THEY and THEY ALONE actually own the law, and the rest of us should just be compliant and go along with it. Do they think this will encourage people to stand for Jury Service? I rather imagine the scramble will be to run in the other direction, as far away from it as possible…..,
Report abuse
she took on the law and the law won,splendid i say just splendid.
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
