HM Attorney General v Random House Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 1727 (QB) (15 July 2009)

HM Attorney General v Random House Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 1727 (QB) (15 July 2009)

The court was not sure that publication of the book would create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the ongoing trial would be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The risk that a juror would read the book and be prejudiced was not substantial, given judicial directions and the context. Therefore, the threshold for granting an injunction was not met.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1727
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Defendant: Random House Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction (contempt of Court) / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Application for injunction refused
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Jury Trials, Prejudicial Publication
Criminal Law Media Law Human Rights Contempt of Court Injunctions Freedom of Expression Jury Trials Prejudicial Publication

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

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant

Random House Group Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction (contempt of Court) / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the book creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in an ongoing criminal trial will be seriously impeded or prejudiced under s.2(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether an injunction restraining publication is necessary and proportionate in light of Article 10 ECHR and s.12 Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The court was not sure that publication of the book would create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the ongoing trial would be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The risk that a juror would read the book and be prejudiced was not substantial, given judicial directions and the context. Therefore, the threshold for granting an injunction was not met.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction refused

Orders

  • No injunction granted restraining publication or sale of the book.