The newspaper and other media companies appealed from an order restricting the reporting of parts of the evidence given in a trial for an offence under the 1989 Act. The objected that the order did not serve, as required, to protect any proceedings, and that it should not be a permanent ban.
Held: The order as made was quashed: ‘It is difficult . . to say that the order that Aikens J made under section 4(2) on 30 April was ‘necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings’. Had the question and answer been published, the criminal proceedings would have continued as before. We find it impossible to say that the repetition of that order, with indefinite effect, after the trial had been completed fell within the jurisdiction conferred by that section.’.
However, ‘we think that it would have been open to the judge, having made it plain that the question and answer had been given in open court in breach of his in camera direction, to have made it plain that to publish the question and answer would be a contempt of court. This it would have been as it would have constituted the frustrating of an order lawfully made by the court.’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ Elias J, Griffith Williams J
[2007] EWCA Crim 1925, [2008] 1 Cr App Rep 16, [2008] 1 WLR 234, [2008] 1 All ER 343
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 159, Official Secrets Act 1989 2 3, Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2), Official Secrets Act 1920 8(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Regina v Horsham Justices ex parte Farquharson CA 1982
The Court was asked whether the justices had had power under section 4(2) to impose reporting restrictions on committal proceedings pending the trial to which they related..
Held: They had. A premature publication in contravention of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Media
Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.258767