Attorney General v Hislop
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PARKER,LORD JUSTICE NICHOLLS,LORD JUSTICE McCOWAN |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1990 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1990] EWHC J0726-1 |
| Docket Number | 90/0728 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 26 July 1990 |
[1990] EWHC J0726-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(Mr. Justice Popplewell)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Parker
Lord Justice Nicholls
and
Lord Justice McCowan
90/0728
In The Matter of An Action In The Queen's Bench Division
MR. ALAN MOSES, Q.C. and MR. J. RICHARD McMANUS (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR. GAVIN LIGHTMAN and MISS ADRIENNE PAGE (instructed by Messrs Schilling & Lom) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).
On the 2nd February 1990 Her Majesty's Attorney-General gave notice of motion to the Respondents Ian Hislop, the editor of the magazine Private Eye, and Pressdram Ltd, its proprietors and publishers, seeking orders:
-
1. That Ian Hislop be commmitted to Her Majesty's Prison and/or be ordered to pay a fine for his contempt as specified in the Notice.
-
2. That Pressdram Ltd. be ordered to pay a fine for its contempt as so specified.
-
3. That both Ian Hislop and Pressdram Ltd. do pay the costs of and incidental to the application and any orders made thereon.
-
4. That such further or other orders be made as may to the Court seem just.
The contempt specified concerned the publication in the issues of Private Eye for the 3rd and 17th February 1989 of two articles relating to Mrs. Sutcliffe the wife of Peter Sutcliffe widely known as the Yorkshire Ripper.
It was alleged in the Notice of Motion:
(a) that the articles were published with the intention of seeking to dissuade Mrs. Sutcliffe from pursuing a pending libel action against Private Eye.
(b) Alternatively that they were published with the intention of prejudicing potential jurors against Mrs. Sutcliffe.
(c) In either event that the publications individually and cumulatively created a real risk of prejudice to the fair trial of the proceedings (i.e. the libel action).
(d) Further and alternatively that the publications individually and cumulatively created a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the said proceedings and so constituted a contempt of Court under the strict liability rule within the meaning of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
The motion was heard by Popplewell J. who on the 30th March 1990 dismissed the application for reasons to be delivered later. They were so delivered in a judgment dated the 11th April 1990.
By Notice of Appeal dated the 2nd May 1990 the Attorney-General now appeals to this Court seeking an order that the judgment be set aside and "that the said David Ian Hislop and Pressdram Ltd. be adjudged in contempt of court and be committed and/or ordered to pay fines for contempt of Court and ordered to pay the applicant's costs of those proceedings and of the appeal to be taxed".
Notwithstanding the terms of the notice of appeal the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the Attorney General wrote on the same day to the solicitors for Mr. Hislop and Pressdram Ltd. (to whom I shall hereafter refer collectively as Private Eye save where some distinction is necessary) in the following terms:
"This appeal is brought because it is considered that the judgment leaves the law in this area in an unsatisfactory state. However, in all the circumstances, the Attorney-General does not propose to seek to persuade the Court of Appeal that an order of committal against Mr. Hislop should be made, although other penalties may well be appropriate."
The foregoing recital of the history of the Attorney-General's application has been necessary because Mr. Lightman Q.C. for Private Eye submits that it results in this Court, by virtue of the provisions of s.13(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, having no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Before considering this point however, I shall set out the principal facts relating to the substantive appeal.
FACTS.
Peter Sutcliffe was arrested on the 2nd January 1981 and on the 30th January there appeared in the magazine an allegation that Mrs. Sutcliffe had sold her story to the Daily Mail for £250,000. Peter Sutcliffe was convicted of murder on the 22nd May 1981. The foregoing allegation was repeated in the issue of the magazine for the 11th February 1983.
It was not until 23rd January 1987 that Mrs. Sutcliffe took action in respect of these two allegations both of which Private Eye has accepted were untrue.
That action took its normal course up to January 1989 when Private Eye made a late amendment to plead justification. Also in that month the action came into the warned list and was likely to come to trial in London in about 3 months. I shall hereafter refer to this action as the first action. Very shortly thereafter came the two articles of 3rd and 17th February the subject of these proceedings. The first article was in these terms:
"Mrs. Sonia Sutcliffe, wife of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, has sued the Eye for libel nearly six years after a story about her appeared. The case should bring up some of the more curious aspects of the hunt for Peter Sutcliffe such as the question of his alibi.
The former Chief Constable of Yorkshire, Ronald Gregory, outlines in his book how on many occasions his men had interviewed Sonia Sutcliffe and how she provided an alibi for her husband when he was out on his murderous adventures by 'telling the (police) officer that her husband rarely went out at night—and, if he did, she went with him'.
No doubt this explanation, subsequently proven to be false, can be adequately dealt with by Mrs. Sutcliffe during cross-examination at the libel hearing."
As to this the learned judge said:
"It is not in dispute that what that article alleged was that the Plaintiff knew before her husband's arrest that he was killing and that she had lied to the police to provide him with a false alibi."
The second article was considerably longer. I find it unnecessary to cite it. It is sufficient to set out the judge's observations upon it. He said:
"It is not in dispute that the words meant that Mrs. Sutcliffe knew what her husband was doing at the time of these killings and did nothing about it; that her protestation to the contrary was a lie; and that she was defrauding the Department of Social Security."
As a result of these articles, (a) Mrs. Sutcliffe's solicitors wrote to the Attorney-General complaining that they constituted a contempt of Court and (b) Mrs. Sutcliffe's pleadings in the first action were amended to set them up in aggravation of damages.
That action resulted on the 24th May 1989 in judgment for Mrs. Sutcliffe for £600,000. By that time the Attorney-General had given notice to Private Eye of the possibility of contempt proceedings in respect of the two articles. It was apparently unsuccessfully contended at the trial that in view of the possibility of contempt proceedings the two articles should not be taken into account in assessing damages.
On the 26th June, 1989 Private Eye gave notice of appeal against the judgment and on the 7th July 1989 Mrs. Sutcliffe issued a writ claiming damages for libel in respect of the two articles of the 3rd and 17th February. I shall refer to this action as the "second action". In that action Private Eye pleaded justification in their defence which was delivered on the 29th September. One week later the Attorney-General informed Private Eye that contempt proceedings would be taken in respect of the two articles.
On the 6th November, a little over a month later, the second action was settled on payment to Mrs. Sutcliffe of substantial damages and all her costs and a statement in open court.
The material parts of that Statement are as follows:
Plaintiff's Counsel
"The Defendants now accept that there is no truth that the Plaintiff lied to the police to provide her husband with a false alibi. Moreover they accept that she had no idea before her husband's arrest of what he had been doing…
I have already stated that the Defendants now accept that the Plaintiff had not known of her husband's criminal activity before his arrest. They also now accept that she has never defrauded the social security authorities and that they had no cause to come knocking on her door."
Defendants' Counsel.
"On behalf of the Defendants, I accept everything that my learned friend has said. The Defendants do now recognise that the Plaintiff knew nothing prior to her husband's arrest of the actions which led to his conviction. They further accept that she has not deceived the social security authorities which have no cause to come knocking on her door."
Two further facts should be recorded. Private Eye's appeal from the judgment for £600,000 was allowed as to quantum by the Court of Appeal and was thereafter disposed of by a consent order which provided inter alia that judgment be entered for Mrs. Sutcliffe for £60,000. The figure of £60,000 was not, as has sometimes been suggested, a figure indicated, much less decided by this Court. It was a matter dealt with entirely by the parties.
I now turn to consider Mr. Lightman's submission that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 so far as immediately material provides:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an appeal shall lie under this section from any order or decision of a court in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court (including...
To continue reading
Request your trial