Page 204 - Law and the Media

Contempt of Court
Other offences that may amount to contempt are:

Failing to comply with a court order
Improper use of documents disclosed during proceedings.

The law of contempt places a considerable restriction on freedom of expression. However,
the courts must now give weight to the Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights
right to freedom of expression introduced into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998
when considering restrictions on publication.

10.2 The Contempt of Court Act 1981

Although it might not always appear to be the case, the CCA came about in order to:

...effect a permanent shift in the balance of public interest away from the
protection of the administration of justice and in favour of freedom of speech.
(A-G v Newspaper Publishing plc (1988))

The CCA was brought into force as a result of a report on contempt by the Phillimore
Committee in 1974 and the European Court of Human Rights decision in Sunday Times v
United Kingdom (1979). Both arose out of proceedings for contempt in respect of a report
in the Sunday Times about the drug thalidomide.

In 1972 the manufacturers of the drug were in the process of settling legal claims brought by
some of the victims of the drug when the Sunday Times published an article criticizing the
proposed court settlement and announcing a further article about the tragedy. Proceedings
were brought against the newspaper by the Attorney General for contempt under the common
law of interfering with active court proceedings. The House of Lords concluded that it was
in the public interest for the Sunday Times to be restrained from publishing further articles
about the proceedings because:

. . . anything in the nature of a prejudgement of a case or of specific issues in it is
objectionable . . . [and may lead to] . . . disrespect for the processes of law.
(A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd (1974))

The decision by the House of Lords that ‘anything’ that ‘prejudged’ the case amounted to a
contempt imposed a greater limitation under the common law on the media than before
without clarifying precisely what the media could or could not publish. An application was
made to the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court disagreed with the
‘prejudgment’ test, and declared that restriction on freedom of expression was not
outweighed by a sufficiently pressing social need.
167