Page 178 - Law and the Media

Reporting Restrictions
Restrictions) (1982)). Although court staff should give every assistance to the media who
wish to find out what was ordered, it is clear that the responsibility remains with the media
to make all necessary enquiries and ensure that no breach of the order occurs.

9.4 The power to prevent the publication of the names
of parties

Under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 the court has the power to restrict the
publication of material, including the names of participants, arising out of proceedings held
in open court. Section 11 states:

In any case where a court (having power to do so) allows a name or other matter
to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court, the court may give
such directions prohibiting the publication of that name or matter in connection
with the proceedings as appear to the court to be necessary for the purpose for
which it was so withheld.

Section 11 does not give the court any particular powers it did not already possess under the
common law. Significantly, however, it does confirm that in circumstances where there is
power to impose partial secrecy inside the courtroom itself by withholding a ‘name or other
matter from the public’, it may impose the same secrecy upon media reporting of the case.
In order to make such an order, the court must have first exercised a valid power to withhold
the relevant information from the members of the public sitting in court.

Orders for anonymity under Section 11 cannot be made in respect of a ‘name or other matter’
that has already been spoken in open court. Further, Section 11 should only be invoked in
circumstances where the interests of justice would be harmed if the name or other matter were
made public. It is a draconian measure, and must not be used simply to spare the
embarrassment of defendants or witnesses. In R v Evesham Justices ex parte McDonagh
(1988), magistrates trying an ex-MP on a motoring charge allowed his address to be kept secret
because he feared harassment from his former wife. The Divisional Court ruled on appeal that
Section 11 orders should be made only where to do otherwise would ‘. . . frustrate or render
impracticable the administration of justice’ because the power to restrict publication ‘was not
enacted for the comfort and feelings of defendants’. The need for objective justification was
confirmed in R v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a firm) (1998).

A common instance where names will be withheld are blackmail proceedings and cases
under the Official Secrets Act. The apparent justification for orders in blackmail cases is to
ensure that victims of blackmail will not be frightened about reporting the crime. In R v
Socialist Worker (1975), the judge in a blackmail case directed that the victims should be
referred to as Mr X and Mr Y. A subsequent article written by Paul Foot in the Socialist
Worker headed ‘Y, Oh Lord, Oh Why?’ named the two men. Both Mr Foot and the magazine
were successfully prosecuted for contempt of court.
141