Page 220 - Law and the Media

Contempt of Court
10.4 Penalties and injunctions

10.4.1 Penalties for contempt

As well as controlling pre-trial publicity, the court’s inherent power to punish for contempt
is the key to enforcement of court orders. Disobedience to an order of the court will lead to
punishment. There is no limit to the fines or term of imprisonment that can be imposed for
a contempt. As a result, the court can impose whatever form of punishment it feels is
appropriate. Contempt is the court’s ultimate weapon and can even result in a term of
imprisonment up to a maximum of two years.

10.4.2 Injunctions

An injunction applying prior restraint to publication is the court order most commonly
encountered by the media. It can take many forms. For example, an author or photographer
whose copyright has been infringed by a newspaper might obtain an injunction to prevent
further infringement. If a breach of confidence is apprehended, the person with rights in the
confidential information can ask the court to prevent its proper disclosure. In the family
courts, it is extremely common for injunctions to be granted against the media in order to
protect minors against publicity that might be harmful. Less common but by no means
infrequent are injunctions banning the publication of libellous material.

Most editors and producers understand the importance of an injunction that has been granted
in respect of his newspaper or programme. Once the order has been served or proper notice
of its existence has been given, which can be by telephone, letter or fax, any breach of its
terms will almost certainly result in punishment for contempt of court.

However, although an injunction may be granted against one particular publisher, it can bind
all other publishers with knowledge of the injunction. Breach of such an order by another
publisher will be contempt. The principle of ‘third-party contempt’ arose from the
Spycatcher litigation in the 1980s. In 1986, injunctions were granted pending trial against the
Guardian and the Observer to restrain them from publishing extracts from Spycatcher.
Knowing of the existence of the injunction, the Independent and the Sunday Times each
carried stories that included parts of the banned material. The rationale for the decision was
that by publishing the material at the heart of the injunction, the Independent and the Sunday
Times destroyed its confidentiality and negated the central issue in the forthcoming trial
between the government and the Guardian and the Observer (A-G v Newspaper Publishing
PCC (1987); A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd (1991)).

Injunctions can also be made ‘against the world’. These injunctions bind all publishers within
the jurisdiction of England and Wales subject to notice.

Injunctions are often served on the Press Association by the party obtaining the injunction in
order for the information to be widely disseminated.
183