Attorney General v Associated Newspaper Group Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1989 |
| Year | 1989 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Contempt of Court - Inferior court - Mental health review tribunal - Whether “court” for purposes of contempt proceedings
P. pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of a young girl and was sentenced to a secure hospital under a restriction order without limit of time. Some years later he applied for discharge. On 23 August 1985 a hearing date before the mental health review tribunal was fixed. On 2 November 1985 articles appeared in the “Daily Mail” and the “Liverpool Echo” entitled “Storm over Bid to Free Sex Killer” and “Storm over Sex Killer” respectively. The hearing started on 11 November but it was adjourned on the second day because of the publicity the proceedings had attracted. Proceedings recommenced in March 1986 and resulted in P. not being released.
On the Attorney-General's motions for committal of the newspaper proprietors and editors for contempt of court: —
Held, dismissing the motions, that in relation to restricted patients mental health review tribunals exercised an executive function and reviewed cases every 12 months against specified criteria; that the facts that a tribunal could not deprive a person of his liberty, that a refusal to discharge was not final and that a case was reviewable indicated that such a tribunal did not deal with the liberty of the subject; and that, accordingly, a mental health review tribunal was not a court for the purposes of the
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Mann L.J.:
Attorney-General v. British Broadcasting Corporation [
Attorney-General v. English [
Attorney-General v. Leveller Magazine Ltd. [
F. (orse. A.) (A Minor) (Publication of Information), In re [
Reg. v. Horsham Justices, Ex parte Farquharson [
Reg. v. Oxford Regional Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department [
X v. United Kingdom (
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Attorney-General v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. [
Motions
By motions dated 27 January 1987, Her Majesty's Attorney-General applied for orders of committal for alleged contempt of court pursuant to
The relief sought was (i) an order that Sir David English be committed to prison for his contempt of a mental health review tribunal in publishing in the “Daily Mail” for 2 November 1985 an article entitled “Storm over Bid to Free Sex Killer” or that he be ordered to pay a fine; (ii) an order that the Associated Newspaper Group Plc. pay a fine for the contempt constituted by the publication; (iii) an order that Mr. Christopher John Oakley be committed to prison for his contempt of the same mental health review tribunal in publishing in the issue of the “Liverpool Echo” for 2 November 1985 an article entitled “Storm over Sex Killer” or that he be ordered to pay a fine; (iv) an order that Trinity International Plc. pay a fine for the contempt constituted by the publication; (v) any other order the court felt fit and an order for costs.
The grounds on which relief was sought were that (a) a mental health review tribunal was a court for the purposes of the
The facts are further stated in the judgment of Mann L.J.
John Mummery for the Attorney-General.
John Mathew Q.C. and Geoffrey Shaw for the “Daily Mail.”
Brian Leveson Q.C. and John Corless for the “Liverpool Echo.”
20 October. MANN L.J. read the following judgment. Her Majesty's Attorney-General by these proceedings make application in respect of two newspapers alleging that they had been guilty of contempt of court. The proceedings are brought under the “strict liability” rule in the
The respondents are as follows. Sir David English who is the editor of the “Daily Mail.” The Associated Newspaper Group Plc. which is the proprietor and publisher of the “Daily Mail.” Christopher John Oakley who is the editor of the “Liverpool Echo.” Trinity International Plc. which is the proprietor and publisher of the “Liverpool Echo.”
In order to understand the way in which these proceedings have come to pass it is necessary to recite a chronology. On 7 December 1972 Peter Pickering pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of a young girl. He was sent to a secure hospital by means of an order under section 60 of the
The articles of which complaint is made were both published on 2 November 1985. They were respectively in the following terms. First the “Daily Mail.”
“Ministers are battling to prevent a child killer being freed from a security hospital, because they believe he is still dangerous. They are horrified at the willingness of the hospital's chief, Dr. Malcolm MacCulloch, to back rapist Peter Pickering in his bid for release later this month. Pickering, 48, was convicted in 1972 of the brutal killing of a 14-year-old schoolgirl. He was sent to Broadmoor but was transferred four years ago to Park Lane Hospital, Liverpool, ‘the Broadmoor of the North’ where Dr. MacCulloch is medical director. Now Pickering will plead for his freedom before a mental health review tribunal on November 11 and 12.
“Confession
“Dr. MacCulloch, whose opinion is likely to be a key factor at the hearing, is pushing for his release. But Home Office Ministers and MPs are determined to resist the move. Some Tory MPs are also expected to call for the removal of Dr. MacCulloch, who became nationally known in 1981 during the trial of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. He decided Sutcliffe was mad within an hour of meeting him and diagnosed the mass murderer as a paranoid schizophrenic without reading evidence of what he had done or his voluntary confession to police. He argued that Sutcliffe was unfit to plead. Ministers are now alarmed that Dr. MacCulloch appears to be more ready than Broadmoor's director, Dr. John Hamilton, to believe that patients, particularly sexual psychopaths, have made sufficient progress either to be released from top security confinement or to be released into the community at large.
“One minister has been heard to say: ‘Pickering's release would terrify me.’ During his trial, Pickering was said to have committed ‘sub-human acts’ on his victim, schoolgirl Shirley Ann Boldy. He grabbed her near her home in Barnsley, South Yorkshire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickering v Liverpool Daily Post and Others
...in July 1988 and the Divisional Court (Mann L.J. and Henry J.) delivered their reserved judgment in October 1988: Attorney-General v. Associated Newspaper Group Plc. [1989] 1 W.L.R. 322. They held, first, that a mental health review tribunal was not a "court" within the definition in the A......
-
General Medical Council v British Broadcasting Corporation
...only to courts of justice properly so called and to judges of such courts of justice". 31In Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers [1989] 1 W.L.R. 322 the Divisional Court held that a mental health tribunal established under the Mental Health Act 1983 was not a court for the purposes of ......
-
Adrian John Bailey v Secretary of State for Justice
...this passage. “Court” was defined as including “any tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the State”. 31 In Attorney-General v Associated Newspaper Group plc [1989] 1 WLR 322, the Divisional Court had held that the Mental Health Review Tribunal was not a court for the purposes ......
-
Pickering v Liverpool Daily Post and Others
...of Court. That matter was heard by the Divisional Court consisting of Mann LJ and Henry J in 1988 and their decision is reported in (1989) 1 WLR p 322. The Attorney General's motions for contempt were dismissed. As I read the judgment of Mann LJ, (which was the only judgment delivered) the......