what 'policy reasons' are important in the case of AG v Scotcher 2004?

Question

to what extent are policy reasons important in the case of AG v Scotcher 2004

Answer 1

A dissenting juror who wrote to the defendant’s mother expressing his dissatisfaction about the majority verdict to convict the defendant was in contempt of court. His desire to expose a perceived miscarriage of justice was no defence.
However, he would not have been in contempt if he had written to the court directly or to the jury bailiff or clerk of court – nor even if he had sent a sealed letter of complaint to the defendant’s solicitors or counsel or even to a citizens’ advice bureau and asked them to forward it unopened to the appropriate court authorities. But what he had done was to disclose confidential jury deliberations to a third party who had no authority to received them and who could have passed them on to anyone, including the media.