Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin) (19 July 2011)

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin) (19 July 2011)

Both defendants committed contempt by publishing prejudicial images online, creating a significant risk to the administration of justice, even though no juror saw the images. The contempt resulted from avoidable mistakes, but mitigation applies due to apologies and remedial steps. Equal fines are appropriate, and full costs are awarded as the defendants chose to contest the case.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; 1st Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd; 2nd Defendant: News Group Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Penalty and Costs Determination After Finding of Contempt
Outcome
Both defendants fined and ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Publication of Prejudicial Material, Online Media Liability, Penalties for Contempt, Costs Assessment
Media Law Criminal Law Contempt of Court Publication of Prejudicial Material Online Media Liability Penalties for Contempt Costs Assessment

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

1st Defendant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Penalty and Costs Determination After Finding of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate penalty for contempt of court by publication of prejudicial images online?
  2. 2 Should costs be awarded and if so, in what amount and on what basis?

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants committed contempt by publishing prejudicial images online, creating a significant risk to the administration of justice, even though no juror saw the images. The contempt resulted from avoidable mistakes, but mitigation applies due to apologies and remedial steps. Equal fines are appropriate, and full costs are awarded as the defendants chose to contest the case.

Court Disposition

Both defendants fined and ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • Each defendant to pay a fine of £15,000 within 14 days.
  • Both defendants to pay the Attorney General's costs summarily assessed at £28,117.23.