The editor published articles prepared by a reporter, affecting the conduct and character of some persons under trial. Both the editor and the reporter were charged with unlawfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Held: Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘We further think that, if the articles are in the opinion of the jury calculated to interfere with the course of justice or pervert the minds of the magistrate or of the jurors, the persons publishing are criminally responsible: See Reg v Grant. We are also of opinion that the fact that Allport and Chappell, the persons referred to, were subsequently convicted can have no weight in the decision of the question now before us. To give effect to such a consideration would involve the consequence that the fact of a conviction, though resulting, either wholly or in part, from the influence upon the minds of the jurors at the trial of such articles as these, justifies their publication. This is an argument which we need scarcely say reduces the position almost to an absurdity, and, indeed, its chief foundation would appear to be a confusion between the course of justice and the result arrived at.’
Judges:
Lord Alverstone CJ
Citations:
[1902] 1 KB 77
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Rafique and Others CACD 23-Apr-1993
Acts carried out before the start of enquiry which was intended to interfere with that enquiry may still pervert cause of justice. Here a body or weapon had been hidden in order to impede the inquiry. . .
Cited – Regina v Rafique and Others CACD 23-Apr-1993
Acts carried out before the start of enquiry which was intended to interfere with that enquiry may still pervert cause of justice. Here a body or weapon had been hidden in order to impede the inquiry. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Media
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244816