Attorney General v Unger & Ors [1997] EWHC Admin 624 (3rd July, 1997)

Attorney General v Unger & Ors [1997] EWHC Admin 624 (3rd July, 1997)

The court held that although the articles unequivocally indicated the guilt of the accused and were published while proceedings were active, they did not create a substantial risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The likelihood of a jury being influenced was minimal due to the lapse of time before any trial, the presumption that juries follow judicial directions, and the absence of contemporaneous or inadmissible prejudicial material. Therefore, the strict liability rule was not breached and contempt was not established.

Citation
[1997] EWHC Admin 624
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; First Respondent: Michael Ronald Unger; Second Respondent: Manchester Evening News Limited; Third Respondent: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Rule, Prejudicial Publication, Freedom of Expression, Risk of Prejudice to Trial
Media Law Criminal Law Contempt of Court Strict Liability Rule Prejudicial Publication Freedom of Expression Risk of Prejudice to Trial

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Michael Ronald Unger

First Respondent

Manchester Evening News Limited

Second Respondent

Associated Newspapers Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication of newspaper articles constituted contempt of court under the strict liability rule by creating a substantial risk that the course of justice in active criminal proceedings would be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the articles unequivocally indicated the guilt of the accused and were published while proceedings were active, they did not create a substantial risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The likelihood of a jury being influenced was minimal due to the lapse of time before any trial, the presumption that juries follow judicial directions, and the absence of contemporaneous or inadmissible prejudicial material. Therefore, the strict liability rule was not breached and contempt was not established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Motions for contempt are dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents, to be paid out of public funds.