Leggatt LJ said that counsel for the Attorney General was correct when he submitted that: ‘It does not follow that because a risk had been created by the broadcast, further publication in newspapers would not create fresh and added risk of prejudice. In other words, if several newspapers publish prejudicial material, they cannot escape from liability by contending that the damage has already been done, because each affords its own additional risk of prejudice, or, as it might be said, each exacerbates and increases the risk.’
Leggatt LJ
[1995] 2 All ER 370
Contempt of Court Act 1981
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Attorney General v Independent Television News and Others QBD 12-May-1994
A complaint of contempt of court was defeated by a deal in the trial which had worked to reduce any risk of prejudice. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General v Random House Group Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
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. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.425621
