Media bodies appealed against an order postponing publicity about the trial of the defendant until the conclusion of the trial of his co-defendants. He had asked to be sentenced on his plea rather than to have his sentence postponed. The judge was concerned at the possible effect of great publicity on the trial to follow.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Two principles were at issue, the freedom of the press, and a defendant’s right to a fair trial, but ‘broadcasting authorities and newspaper editors should be trusted to fulfil their responsibilities accurately to inform the public of court proceedings and to exercise sensible judgment about the publication of comment which might interfere with the administration of justice. ‘ Responsible editors should expected to avoid the risks of committing contempt. The court also recognised the respect given by juries to defendants’ rights to a fair trial, and the ability of judges to assist them with directions.
Judges:
Sir Igor Judge, President, Mr Justice Penry Davey and Mr Justice Mackay
Citations:
Times 06-Nov-2006, [2007] EMLR 145, [2006] EWCA Crim 2692, [2007] UKHRR 577, [2007] HRLR 1
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – HM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247629
