Greater Manchester Police v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd

Greater Manchester Police v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd

The high standard of proof required to restrain publication was not met; the proposed broadcast did not create a substantial risk of serious prejudice beyond the existing notoriety and publicity, and thus the injunction should not have been granted.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police; Defendant/appellant: Channel 5 Broadcast Limited; Victim: Desmond Noonan (deceased); Interested Party: Mr P Havers QC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; injunction quashed; costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Prejudicial Publication, Contempt of Court Act 1981, Witness Intimidation
Media Law Criminal Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Prejudicial Publication Contempt of Court Act 1981 Witness Intimidation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Claimant/respondent

Channel 5 Broadcast Limited

Defendant/appellant

Desmond Noonan (deceased)

Victim

Mr P Havers QC

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcast of a television programme would create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the course of justice in active criminal proceedings under section 2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether the standard for granting an injunction restraining publication was met

Ratio Decidendi

The high standard of proof required to restrain publication was not met; the proposed broadcast did not create a substantial risk of serious prejudice beyond the existing notoriety and publicity, and thus the injunction should not have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; injunction quashed; costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • Order of Poole J restraining broadcast quashed
  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs, subject to detailed assessment