HM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 2029 (Admin) (18 July 2012)

HM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 2029 (Admin) (18 July 2012)

Both the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, by publishing highly prejudicial material about Bellfield's sexual offences and other alleged crimes not before the jury, created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the ongoing trial would be seriously prejudiced, satisfying the strict liability test under s.2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2029 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; First Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Second Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Both defendants found to have committed contempt of court under the strict liability rule.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Contempt, Prejudicial Publication, Jury Trial, Media Reporting, Risk of Serious Prejudice
Criminal Law Media Law Contempt of Court Strict Liability Contempt Prejudicial Publication Jury Trial Media Reporting Risk of Serious Prejudice

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 Proceedings / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether articles published by the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the Bellfield trial would be seriously impeded or prejudiced under s.2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

Both the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, by publishing highly prejudicial material about Bellfield's sexual offences and other alleged crimes not before the jury, created a substantial risk that the course of justice in the ongoing trial would be seriously prejudiced, satisfying the strict liability test under s.2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Court Disposition

Both defendants found to have committed contempt of court under the strict liability rule.

Orders

  • Court to invite submissions from the Attorney General and counsel for the newspapers on penalty.