PETITION TO THE NOBILE OFFICIUM BY THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2001] ScotHC 23 (2nd May, 2001)

PETITION TO THE NOBILE OFFICIUM BY THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2001] ScotHC 23 (2nd May, 2001)

The Section 4(2) order was not necessary to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in any potential proceedings against William Ward, as jury directions and the experience of jurors in focusing on trial evidence are sufficient safeguards; the public interest in fair and accurate reporting outweighs the speculative risk of prejudice.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 23
Parties
Petitioner: British Broadcasting Corporation; Second Respondent (accused): Graeme John Donaldson; Third Respondent: William Ward; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Petition to the Nobile Officium / Appeal Against Section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Section 4(2) order recalled.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression, Reporting Restrictions, Fair Trial, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Media Law Human Rights Contempt of Court Freedom of Expression Reporting Restrictions Fair Trial Jury Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Broadcasting Corporation

Petitioner

Graeme John Donaldson

Second Respondent (accused)

William Ward

Third Respondent

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to the Nobile Officium / Appeal Against Section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Section 4(2) order postponing publication of trial proceedings was necessary to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in potential proceedings against William Ward
  2. 2 Whether reporting restrictions were justified under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and compatible with Article 6 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Section 4(2) order was not necessary to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in any potential proceedings against William Ward, as jury directions and the experience of jurors in focusing on trial evidence are sufficient safeguards; the public interest in fair and accurate reporting outweighs the speculative risk of prejudice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Section 4(2) order recalled.

Orders

  • Order under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 pronounced on 19 April 2001 recalled.