HM Attorney General v Pelling

HM Attorney General v Pelling

Deliberate publication of a judgment given in private in Children Act proceedings, in breach of the established law and without lawful justification, constitutes a criminal contempt of court. The law is clear and certain, and the defendant’s actions were intentional and serious, though mitigated by his subsequent undertakings and lack of harm to the child.

Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Defendant: Michael John Pelling
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Contempt (application for Committal) / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of contempt of court. No custodial or financial penalty imposed beyond costs and undertakings.
Legal Topics
Publication of Private Judgments, Children Act 1989, Open Justice, Administration of Justice Act 1960 S.12, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Sentencing for Contempt
Contempt of Court Family Law Civil Procedure Publication of Private Judgments Children Act 1989 Open Justice Administration of Justice Act 1960 S.12 Human Rights Act 1998 +3 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Attorney General

Claimant

Michael John Pelling

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Contempt (application for Committal) / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of a private Children Act judgment constitutes criminal contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the defendant’s actions were protected by common law or ECHR rights to open justice and freedom of expression
  3. 3 Appropriate penalty for contempt in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Deliberate publication of a judgment given in private in Children Act proceedings, in breach of the established law and without lawful justification, constitutes a criminal contempt of court. The law is clear and certain, and the defendant’s actions were intentional and serious, though mitigated by his subsequent undertakings and lack of harm to the child.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of contempt of court. No custodial or financial penalty imposed beyond costs and undertakings.

Orders

  • Defendant to give formal undertakings not to publish further Children Act judgments or prohibited information as defined by s.12(1)(a)(ii) Administration of Justice Act 1960.
  • Defendant to request removal of the judgment from relevant websites and confirm compliance to the court.