Contempt of court

• Common law:

  • Previous SL set a low threshold
  • Proceedings would be instituted if possibility of prejudice
  • Triggered frequently to block publications - favors A6 over A10
  • ECtHR critised in Sunday Times v UK in relation to injunction imposed on the newspaper for its reporting on thalidomide scandal - article was incidental reporting, not prejudice
  • Over-cautious, heavy handed approach reformed by Contempt Of Court Act 1981 to restore balance of A6 and A10
• Act 1911:

  • S.1 - offence of contempt by publication - strict liability, easier to secure A6 prioritised
  • Safeguards have been built into legislation to help guarantee a coherent application of legal rules to ensure a prudent path is navigated
  • S.2 confirms that only this applies to publications addressed to the public at large confirming individuals will still be largely free to excerise A10 to smaller groups where prejudice is small
• Act 1911:

  • Biggest development in terms of redressing the imbalance between A6 and A10 and is requiring a substantial risk that justice will be seriously impeded or prejudice rather than just a possibility of prejudice
  • Several factors must be considered before deciding
  • Confirms finding of contempt must be substantial more under CCA 1981 under the common law creating a better balance between A6 and A10
• Act 1911:

  • Not necessary to imply someone is guilty or necessary proceedings are actually prejudiced, law now ensures only the most damaging publications trigger contempt proceedings - greater importance to A10
  • Acts as a 'subjudice' - clear indicator to editors of publications/twitter users
  • availability of the defence of innocent publication in S.3 will protect someone who does not know and has no reason to suspect that proceedings - shows A6 is not priortised at all costs
• Act 1911:

  • S.5 affords editors and journalists a defence where the publication is made a good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest
  • Defence ensures matters of current controvery can continue to be reported on, providing it is done in an objective manner (AG v English)
  • Interpreted broadly to make suitable allowances for A10
  • Rarity of cases raising S.5 suggests that the AG makes rational decisions where determining public interest
• Act 1911:

  • S.7 states AG must consent to prosecution
  • Pre-empt the need to prosecute and simultaneously maintain a proper balance between A6 and A10
  • AG issues advisory notices where a high-profile case comes close to breaching contempt rules
• Conclusion:

  • More cautious approach advocated by CCA 1981 in relation to contempt by publication strikes a much fairer balance between A6 and A10
  • Maintaining a fair trial is of fundamental importance
  • Previous common law rules were too heavy handed, law was not able to adequately accommodate the responsibility of the media to report on matters of great concern to the public
• Conclusion:

  • A more satisfactory approach is taken
  • CCA 1981 has narrowed the scope of contempt seemingly allowing A10 priority over A6
  • CCA 1981 - very good job in ensuring a fair trial
  • Helps keep the media in check and legal systems in check