HM Attorney-General v MGN Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin) (29 July 2011)

HM Attorney-General v MGN Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin) (29 July 2011)

The publications in the Daily Mirror and The Sun created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings against Mr Jefferies would be seriously impeded or prejudiced, particularly by deterring potential defence witnesses and damaging the preparation of his defence, thus constituting contempt of court under the strict liability rule.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney-General; First Defendant: MGN Limited; Second Defendant: News Group Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Defendants found in contempt of court under the strict liability rule.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Contempt, Prejudicial Publicity, Impediment to Justice, Freedom of Expression, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Media Law Contempt of Court Strict Liability Contempt Prejudicial Publicity Impediment to Justice Freedom of Expression Fair Trial Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney-General

Claimant

MGN Limited

First Defendant

News Group Newspapers Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publications by the defendants created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings against Mr Jefferies would be seriously impeded or prejudiced under section 2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

The publications in the Daily Mirror and The Sun created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings against Mr Jefferies would be seriously impeded or prejudiced, particularly by deterring potential defence witnesses and damaging the preparation of his defence, thus constituting contempt of court under the strict liability rule.

Court Disposition

Defendants found in contempt of court under the strict liability rule.

Orders

  • Court invites submissions from the Attorney-General and counsel for the newspapers on penalty.