The accused claimed that his trial had been unfairly prejudiced by a television interview which took place before he had been charged with any offence, but when it was quite obvious that a charge was about to be brought against him. The publicity had been 11 months before the trial.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused. The strict law of contempt might apply before proceedings begin, provided they appear to be imminent. Trial by television is not to be tolerated in a civilised society’
Salmon LJ said: ‘No-one should imagine that he is safe from committal for contempt of court if, knowing or having good reason to believe that criminal proceedings are imminent, he chooses to publish matters calculated to prejudice a fair trial . . trial by television is not to be tolerated in a civilised society’. These, however, are only obiter dicta, and I have not been referred to any decided case in this jurisdiction or in the other common law jurisdictions where attachment for contempt of court has been grounded upon material published when no court has actually had seisin of the case in respect of which contempt is alleged. As the courts must always have regard to the countervailing importance of preserving the freedom of the press, I do not consider that the facts disclosed in the affidavit grounding the present application are of such a character as would justify me in extending the law as to contempt of court in the manner now sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions.’
Judges:
Salmon LJ
Citations:
[1968] 3 All ER 439, [1968] 52 Cr App R 637
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Contempt of Court
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.272778