Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 2981 (Admin) (16 October 2012)

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 2981 (Admin) (16 October 2012)

The defendants' publications, at a time when not all verdicts had been returned, created a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the ongoing trial, breaching the strict liability rule. Mitigating factors justified fines at the lower end of the scale.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2981 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; First Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Second Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court / Sentencing and Post Judgment Applications
Outcome
Defendants found in contempt of court; fines imposed; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Rule, Prejudicial Publication, Jury Trials, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Act, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Criminal Law Contempt of Court Strict Liability Rule Prejudicial Publication Jury Trials Freedom of Expression Human Rights Act +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

First Defendant

MGN Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court / Sentencing and Post Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' publications created a substantial risk of serious prejudice to ongoing criminal proceedings in breach of the strict liability rule under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether selective prosecution of publishers infringed Article 10 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' publications, at a time when not all verdicts had been returned, created a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the ongoing trial, breaching the strict liability rule. Mitigating factors justified fines at the lower end of the scale.

Court Disposition

Defendants found in contempt of court; fines imposed; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Each defendant fined £10,000.
  • Each defendant to pay £25,000 towards Attorney General's costs.