Page 214 - Law and the Media

Contempt of Court
Circulation
If the circulation of the publication is small, the risk and seriousness of the prejudice is
reduced. This may have limited relevance as a result of the increasing availability of the
Internet.

Undermining or intimidating witnesses, the parties or a juror
If a publication suggests that a witness or party is untruthful, this may prejudice the trial at
which he is to give evidence. A publication that seeks to persuade a witness or party to refrain
from giving evidence or change his evidence would probably constitute a serious
interference within the meaning of the strict liability rule. A publication that seeks to
undermine or intimidate a juror is likely to produce the same result.

Articles written to deter the other party from pursuing a claim will amount to a substantial
risk of serious prejudice to those proceedings. In A-G v Hislop (1991), the defendant
published material in the magazine Private Eye that the court held was for the purpose of
persuading the wife of the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ to discontinue her action for defamation
against the magazine.

Anticipating the verdict
There is an obvious danger of contempt in media features that predict the outcome of a case
or comment on the worth of particular pieces of evidence. This is especially so in cases heard
by a jury.

Civil proceedings
In civil proceedings, there is a particular danger in revealing details of communications that
are protected against disclosure to the court – for example, documents to which legal
professional privilege attaches, or offers of settlement.

10.2.6 The role of the Attorney General

Criminal proceedings for contempt of court under the strict liability rule can only be
instituted by the Attorney General. The Attorney General carries out his duties ‘on behalf of
the Crown as the fountain of justice’, not in his capacity as a member of the government.

The CCA prevents a private individual from bringing proceedings for strict liability
contempt. The issue was considered in the case involving Michelle and Lisa Taylor, two
sisters who were convicted of murder in 1992. There was extensive media coverage of the
proceedings, which the trial judge referred to as ‘unremitting, extensive, sensational,
inaccurate and misleading’. The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and agreed with
the trial judge about the sensational and inaccurate nature of the media coverage.

The Attorney General was requested to consider a prosecution of various newspapers for
contempt. However, he declined to prosecute. The Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the
177