A MAN has been jailed for jury intimidation after shouting remarks in court following the conviction of his nephew for burglary.

Leeds Crown Court heard that Anthony Richardson, 53, was in the public gallery at York Crown Court on November 19 last year when the verdict was given at the end of the trial and sentence was imposed.

Louise Pryke prosecuting said as his nephew was being taken down to the cells, Richardson stood up and shouted: “I hope you lot are happy with yourselves. I’ve got your faces, I know who you are.”

She told the court the foreman of the jury said he was aware of the responsibility involved in trials and had been nervous about giving the verdict and found those remarks to be “openly threatening and aggressive to himself and the rest of the jury”.

That night when he heard a noise outside his home and went to investigate, he was concerned because he believed the threats.

Richardson was later identified by an usher and prosecution barrister. He told police after his arrest that he was shocked at his nephew’s sentence and had felt angry and frustrated.

Julian Tanikal, representing Richardson, said he was immediately remorseful after making the comments and had left the building realising what he had done.

He had reacted under the pressure of the situation at the end of a three-day trial. He said: “It was an instantaneous outburst, a one-off which he deeply regrets.”

The trial was effectively over at that stage and he had no influence on the outcome.

He said Richardson suffered from ill health and relied on benefits. He had been the victim of an assault himself on Teesside which had led to him moving to York, where he was sharing a one-bedroom flat with his sister, his partner and their child and was hoping to get housing there. His partner and young child would suffer if he was sent to jail.

Richardson of Wilberforce Avenue, Clifton, admitted jury intimidation and was jailed for two months.

The Recorder of Leeds, Judge Peter Collier QC, said jury service was the most important civic duty performed in peacetime and courts appreciated the interference it made in the lives of those called to serve on juries.

“Any threat to a jury whether considering a case or on delivering a verdict has to be taken by a court very seriously,”

he said.

“One can understand how that would prey on people’s minds having heard your words.”

He accepted they were spoken impulsively and “in the heat of the moment” but there had to be a jail term.