swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Contempt of Court - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 3); CA 1992 - [1992] 1 WLR 874; [1992] 3 All ER 38
Director General of Fair Trading v Smiths Concrete: re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete [1992] QB 212
1992
Contempt of Court
For a person to be found in contempt of a court order it is necessary to show that that he knew of the relevant order and with that knowledge he intended to do the act which amounted to a breach of the court order. It is not necessary to show that he intended to disobey the court order.
1 Citers
Attorney-General v The Guardian [1992] 1 WLR
1992
CA
Mann LJ
Contempt of Court
To be caught under the Act the risk of prejudice to a trial caused by a publication alleged to be in breach must be practical and not theoretical.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
1 Citers
Dobson and Another v Hastings and Others Gazette, 26 February 1992
26 Feb 1992
ChD
Contempt of Court
It was not contempt of court where journalist got information from court file with permission.
Regina v Palmer Gazette, 15 April 1992
15 Apr 1992
CACD
Contempt of Court
The Court has no power to order probation for a person found guilty of contempt of court.
Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 21
Irtelli v Squatriti and Others Gazette, 15 April 1992; [1993] QB 83
15 Apr 1992
CA
Contempt of Court
Fresh evidence may be accepted in appeals against committal for contempt.
1 Citers
Harris v Crisp Gazette, 16 September 1992
16 Sep 1992
CA
Contempt of Court
A Judge retains the discretion to continue with proceedings for contempt even though criminal charges are also faced by the contemnor from the same acts.
Moerman-Lenglet v Henshaw Times, 25 November 1992
25 Nov 1992
Chadwick J
Contempt of Court
1 Citers
HM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others Gazette, 09 December 1992
9 Dec 1992
QBD
Beldam LJ
Human Rights, Media, Contempt of Court
A newspaper was held to have been in contempt of court for publishing details of the deliberations of a jury, even though it had not solicited the information. Beldam LJ said of the word 'disclosure': "It is a word wide enough to encompass the revealing of the secrets of the jury room by a juryman to his friend or neighbour as well as the opening up of such knowledge to the public as a whole by someone to whom it has been revealed. And in the light of the background to which we have referred, we see every reason why Parliament should have intended the word 'disclose' to cover both situations. Nor do we regard it as significant that the secrets came into the hands of the newspaper indirectly. The existence of a market for the transcript of interviews with jurors containing prohibited details of their deliberations is as inimical to the interests of justice as the direct solicitation for money which occurred in this case. Section 8 is aimed at keeping the secrets of the jury room inviolate in the interests of justice. We believe that it would only be by giving it an interpretation which would emasculate Parliament's purpose that it could be held that the widespread disclosure in this case did not infringe the section."
Beldam LJ pointed out that if disclosures were allowed, jurors may come under pressure to make disclosures: "It was against this background that Parliament enacted section 8 of the Act of 1981. If breaches of the secrecy of the jury room had escalated to a degree that Parliament deemed a statutory sanction to be necessary, then its duty was to define clearly the circumstances in which an offence would be committed so that criminal sanctions were restricted to those offences which, in Lord Diplock's words in Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1994] AC 440, 449: 'involve an interference with the due administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process.'" and "Thus, we believe, the law has long recognised the importance of complete freedom of discussion in the jury room. If a juror were to be deterred from expressing his doubt of the accused's guilt because he feared subsequent recrimination or ridicule, the accused might be deprived of a persuasive voice in his favour. So, too, a jury deciding a plaintiff's claim to damages for libel ought not to be exposed to interrogation by the erstwhile defendants or others who share an interest in avoiding liability for, or reducing the consequences of, defamatory publication. We consider that the free, uninhibited and unfettered discussion by the jury in the course of their deliberations is essential to the proper administration of a system of justice which includes trial by jury. The enacted provisions designed to maintain such discussion are confined to soliciting, disclosing or publishing the particular aspects of the discussion in the jury room identified in the section. To that extent only do they restrain freedom expression. There is no restriction, as Mr Pannick [counsel for the newspaper] suggested, on the freedom to express opinions, advance arguments, advocate changes or promote reform on the many aspects of jury trial which have already been the subject of public debate and which are, and remain, proper objects of public concern and interest. In due course the European Court of Human Rights may be called upon to decide whether the measures enacted by Parliament are disproportionate to the restriction imposed on freedom of expression. When it does so, it will surely take full account of Parliament's experience of trial by jury as an instrument of justice in the United Kingdom and its appreciation of the need today to protect the secrecy of the jury room. We were invited to take these factors into account to guide our interpretation of section 8. To the extent that it is permissible for this purpose, we have considered them."
European Convention on Human Rights - Contempt of Court Act 1981 8(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers