HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd

HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd

The publication in the Yorkshire edition of the Daily Mirror created a real and substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice in the pending trial of Mustaf Jama, particularly due to references to previous convictions, alleged radicalisation, and prejudicial characterisations. The contempt was serious, though mitigated by the absence of actual trial delay, the existence of a generally effective vetting system, and a full apology. A fine of £25,000 and indemnity costs were appropriate sanctions.

Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Defendant: MGN Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment on Sanction
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt; fine and indemnity costs ordered
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Rule, Prejudicial Publication, Trial Venue Change, Mitigation in Contempt, Sanctions for Contempt
Criminal Law Media Law Contempt of Court Strict Liability Rule Prejudicial Publication Trial Venue Change Mitigation in Contempt Sanctions for Contempt

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant

MGN Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Judgment on Sanction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication created a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice in pending criminal proceedings
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sanction for the admitted contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The publication in the Yorkshire edition of the Daily Mirror created a real and substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice in the pending trial of Mustaf Jama, particularly due to references to previous convictions, alleged radicalisation, and prejudicial characterisations. The contempt was serious, though mitigated by the absence of actual trial delay, the existence of a generally effective vetting system, and a full apology. A fine of £25,000 and indemnity costs were appropriate sanctions.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt; fine and indemnity costs ordered

Orders

  • MGN Ltd to pay a fine of £25,000
  • MGN Ltd to pay the Attorney General's reasonable costs on an indemnity basis