The risk of impediment or prejudice to a trial from a publication has to be assessed at the date of publication. ‘Substantial risk’ in section 2(2) means a risk which is more than remote. Lord Diplock said: ‘Next for consideration is the . .
Complaint was made that the defendant newspapers had caused a serious prejudice to a trial by articles published before the trial of the defendant in criminal proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to theft at the magistrates’ court after she had been interviewed by a newspaper, which published her statement that she would not be denying … Continue reading Attorney General v Michael Ronald Unger; Manchester Evening News Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited: Admn 3 Jul 1997
The questions asked of a court when staying a criminal trial because of newspaper reporting, and when assessing a contempt of court, are different, and the stay of a trial need have no implication that a contempt has been committed. The strict liability rules did not help. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘It seems to me … Continue reading Attorney-General v Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd: QBD 31 Aug 1998
A ‘substantial risk’ in section 2(2) can means a risk which is ‘not insubstantial’. The test of ‘substantial risk’ and ‘serious prejudice’ are separate but overlapping. The degree of risk of impact of a publication on a trial and the extent of that impact may both be affected, in differing degrees according to the circumstances, … Continue reading Attorney-General v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 1987
There had been, over some years, ‘saturation coverage’ of the relationship between a television personality and her boyfriend. Disclosures were made about his violence and his previous convictions. He came to be arrested and charged with a serious assault. Some newspapers published articles about the alleged incident. He successfully applied for the proceedings to be … Continue reading Attorney General v MGN Limited: CA 1997
The Attorney-General sought to restrain the publication of a book which she said would prejudice the defendants in a forthcoming criminal trial. The publisher said that a restraint would be a disproportionate interference in its Article 10 rights. . .
Anonymised Party to Proceedings The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported exercise) of a common law power. The court also gave directions … Continue reading A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland): SC 8 May 2014
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the proceedings held in private. Held: Their appeal against the order allowing access failed. The normal rule … Continue reading A v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others: CA 31 Mar 2010
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun ran stories which were so vivid that the Attorney-General said, they … Continue reading HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another: Admn 29 Jul 2011
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was manifestly unfounded. Held: Mental health was part of the respect for private life protected by article 8. … Continue reading Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc: HL 17 Jun 2004
The Attorney General sought a finding of contempt against the defendant television company in respect of its reporting of a criminal trial. The defendant in the trial faced a charge of murder. The company broacast to the region on the morning of the . .
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .
The claimant sought an order for the committal of the respondent for contempt in having breached an order to restrict their naming of a footballer arrested on allegations of serious sexual assaults. The claim had not gone forward.
Held: ‘ . . . .