Page 175 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
but cannot be accommodated, the judge should consider adjourning the proceedings in whole
or in part into open court or allowing one or more representatives of the press to attend the
hearing (Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Limited (1998); Practice Direction 39 supplementing
Part 39 of the Civil Procedure Rules paragraph 1.10).

9.2.5 The court as a public authority under the European
Convention on Human Rights

The incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into English law by the
Human Rights Act 1998 will have an impact on reporting restrictions. The effect of the
Convention has already been felt in the case of Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd
(2001). The two notorious child murderers of James Bulger sought injunctions to prevent the
publication of confidential information that might lead to their identification. Given there
was a ‘real possibility’ that the applicants could be the objects of revenge attacks if their new
identities and whereabouts were made public, the court was of the view there was a ‘strong
and pressing social need’ for their confidentiality and Convention rights to be protected, and
granted the injunctions ‘to protect the applicants from serious and possibly irreparable harm’.
The court acknowledged that injunctions had not previously been granted in such
circumstances, but emphasized that the claimants were ‘uniquely notorious’ and their
circumstances ‘exceptional’, and stressed that the case created a ‘strictly defined
exception’.

9.3 The power to postpone the reporting of
proceedings

9.3.1 General principles

Under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the court may order the
postponement of publication of any report relating to proceedings. The postponement may be
for any period of time the court thinks necessary in order to avoid a substantial risk of
prejudice to the administration of justice. The risk may relate to the proceedings in question
or any other pending or imminent proceedings. The authority of the court to postpone the
publication of information under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is
exhaustive, and there is no inherent power beyond this provision (R v Newtownabbey
Magistrates’ Court ex parte Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd (1997)).

Since the implementation of Section 4(2), its use by the courts has frequently led to criticism
and challenge. There seems to have been a tendency, especially in the lower courts, to make
an order on inappropriate grounds or in the form of a permanent ban rather than simply for
the postponement of reporting on the proceedings. The Court of Appeal has acknowledged
that orders restricting publication are commonly made in situations where they should not be
made. It also acknowledged that the problem is often exacerbated where the story is one that
138