Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Contempt of Court - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Burden of proof on publisher/distributor
  - - - REFORM for 4(2):
        
        Law commission: media can be unaware that an order is in place
- - - - AG News Group Newspapers [1986]:
        
        Is there a real risk that the trial will be affected at all by what has been published?
        
        If so, would the potential effect amount to a serious prejudice?
        
        The prospect of serious prejudice:
        
        Judge or jury trial?
        
        When did the publication come out, during hearing?
        
        Locality, place of trial?
        
        Circulation, number of audience?
        
        Content of the report?
        
        Abdulla Ali v UK [2015]: accused of serious terrorism offence, with questionable material published before trial,
        
        the question is whether a fair minded and informed observer having considered the facts would conclude that the tribunal was biased (Lord Hope in Porter v Magill [2001])
      - AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1992]:
        Serious prejudice = real prospect that as a result of the publication will cause:
        
        the outcome of the case to be different
        
        the jury to be discharged
        
        the hearing to stop, or for the hearing to be transferred to another court
    - - Schedule 1: Active proceedings include:
        
        arrest without warrant,
        
        issue of warrant,
        
        issue of summons to appear,
        
        service of indictment or other document specifying charge, oral charge
        
        UNTIL:
        
        suspect is released w/o bail
        
        no charge made within 12 months
        
        charge withdrawn
        
        D found unfit to plead
        
        Acquitted
        
        Sentenced
        
        Case otherwise ends
      - Pre-trial publications
        
        The Joanna Yates Trial:
        action against the Mirror and the Sun:
        
        found to be in contempt of court
        
        led to the Levenson inquiry "Jeffries was the victim of a very serious injustice perpetrated by a significant section of the press"
        
        distinguished as the trial was for a third party's crime the issue then became whether there was an impediment that may have deterred witnesses from coming forward
        
        Police guidance on media regulations (2017):
        
        those charged with an offence should be named unless there is a legitimate reason for not doing so
        
        Forces should proactively release charging information where the crime is of a serious nature
        
        Reporting restrictions that are statutory exceptions: under 18s, Medias responsibility to follow
        
        etc etc
        
        Pre charge anonymity:
        
        Bloomberg v ZXC [2022]: SC confirmed that a person being investigated for a crime has a reasonable expectation of privacy before they are charged
        
        AG v MGN Ltd [1997]: Court will look at risk of prejudicing the trial, at the time of publication, likelihood of publication reaching the juror, impacts on ordinary reader, residual impact (fade factor)
        
        Publications during trial
        
        Contemporary reports of proceedings: Section 4 1981:
        (2): ...order that the publication of any report of the proceedings or any part of the proceedings be postponed for such period as the courts think is necessary for that purpose
        
        AG v MGN [2002]:
        
        reporting was made on trial that was jury was still in deliberations and was sent home for the weekend
        
        Mirror fined 75,000
        
        A-G estimated the cost of the first and second trial was more than 1M each
        
        AG v Associated Newspapers [2011]:
        
        Picture of D posing with a gun was left online for 5 hours, fined 15,000 plus 28000 in costs
        
        No reason for the public purse to bear the expense of the mistake made by press
        
        AG v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012]:
        
        Jury was discharged as news of D's violent behaviour surfaced during deliberations of second crime
        
        Found guilty of contempt, as there was a risk of serious prejudice
        
        AG v Conde Nast Publications Ltd [2015]:
        Questions of fact:
        
        What was the risk of the publication coming to the juror's attention?
        
        Was there a serious risk of prejudice?
        
        Could a jury have been relied upon to use their common sense to ignore it?
- - - - Exceptions:
        (i) an offence of contempt of court has been committed by or in relation to a juror in connection with those proceedings
        (ii) conduct of a juror in connection with those proceedings may provide grounds for an appeal against conviction or sentence
- - - - Seckerson v UK: it is such that an absolute rule cannot be viewed as being unreasonable or disproportionate