HM Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 12 Mar 2007

The police were conducting a major investigation into suspected awards of state honours in return for cash and associated events. The AG had obtained an order restraining the defendant and other media from reporting allegations that one person was said to have accused another of asking her to lie for him. It was said that media debate would interfere with the investigation.
Held: The injunction was discharged. The judge had applied the wrong test. The criminal burden of proof did not apply to allegations under rule 39.2.


Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Dyson LJ, Thomas LJ


[2007] EWCA Civ 280, Times 14-Mar-2007




Contempt of Court Act 1981 1 2, Civil Procedure Rules 39.2


England and Wales


CitedHodgson and others v Imperial Tobacco Limited Gallagher Limited etc CA 12-Feb-1998
A large number of plaintiffs brought actions against the defendants, three tobacco companies, claiming damages for personal injuries by reason of cancer which they claimed was caused by smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendants. A hearing . .
CitedRegina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
CitedDepartment of Economic Policy and Development of City of Moscow and Another v Bankers Trust Company and Another CA 25-Mar-2004
The word ‘private’ in rule 39.2 means the same as ‘secret’. Lord Justice Mance said: ‘It may be equated with the old ‘in camera’ procedure, rather than the old ‘in chambers’ procedure.’ Privacy and confidentiality are features long assumed to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Contempt of Court, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.250981