Her Majesty's Advocate V. Beggs (No. 2) [2001] ScotHC 122 (21 September 2001)

Her Majesty's Advocate V. Beggs (No. 2) [2001] ScotHC 122 (21 September 2001)

Archived internet material, though accessible during active proceedings, does not create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, given the remote likelihood of juror access and the effectiveness of judicial directions. Therefore, no prima facie contempt of court is established under the strict liability rule.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 122
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty's Advocate; Defendant: William Frederick Ian Beggs
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
motion refused
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Rule, Publication on Internet, Fair Trial, Prejudicial Publicity, Contempt of Court Act 1981
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Media Law Strict Liability Rule Publication on Internet Fair Trial Prejudicial Publicity Contempt of Court Act 1981

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Prosecutor

William Frederick Ian Beggs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether internet publications constitute contempt of court under the strict liability rule during active proceedings
  2. 2 Whether archived online material creates substantial risk of prejudice to a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

Archived internet material, though accessible during active proceedings, does not create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, given the remote likelihood of juror access and the effectiveness of judicial directions. Therefore, no prima facie contempt of court is established under the strict liability rule.

Court Disposition

motion refused

Orders

  • Publishers of the material are not ordered to appear before the court