The defendant newspaper had published facts relating to the whereabouts of two youths protected by injunction against the publication of any information likely to lead to their location. The injunction was not ambiguous or unclear. ‘Likely’ did not mean statistical probability but a real chance that the information would put the lives at risk. Information which was not accessible to the general public was not in the public domain. To establish a contempt, the Attorney General had to establish to the criminal level of proof that the defendant knew of the injunction and its terms, that the information published was ‘likely to lead to the identification’ of the past, present or future whereabouts of youths; and that the information was not already in the public domain.
Judges:
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Division
Citations:
Times 07-Dec-2001, Gazette 06-Feb-2002, [2001] EWHC QB 451, [2001] All ER (D) 32 (Dec)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stephens v Avery ChD 1988
The parties had been friends and had discussed their sex lives. The defendant took the information to a newspaper and its editor, the second and subsequent defendants who published it. The plaintiff sought damages saying the conversations and . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Cited by:
Cited – O’Riordan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 19-May-2005
An offender had absconded with a child and was to be prosecuted for sex offences against her. The police circulated all the journalists who had had contact to say that an identification of the defendant would also identify the girl. The defendant . .
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court, Media
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.167207
