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 trial would be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The risk of prejudice was not sufficiently substantial or serious, and the likelihood of jurors disobeying judicial directions was not established to the required standard. An injunction was not necessary or proportionate under Article 10 ECHR and s.12 Human Rights Act 1998.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1727 (QB)
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 Interim Injunction / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application for injunction refused
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression, Interim Injunctions, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Media Law Human Rights Contempt of Court Freedom of Expression Interim Injunctions Fair Trial Rights

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 24 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 Interim Injunction / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the book creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to the ongoing criminal trial under s.2(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether an injunction restraining publication is necessary and proportionate under 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 trial would be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The risk of prejudice was not sufficiently substantial or serious, and the likelihood of jurors disobeying judicial directions was not established to the required standard. An injunction was not necessary or proportionate under Article 10 ECHR and s.12 Human Rights Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction refused