Attorney General v Independent Television News Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1994 |
| Date | 06 May 1994 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Leggatt and Mr Justice Buxton
Broadcasting - contempt of court - prejudicial material
Although prejudicial material had been broadcast and published, no contempt of court was established because of the length of time between publication and trial, the ephemeral nature of a single broadcast and the limited circulation of the newspapers with the offending article.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in dismissing an application by the Attorney General for an order that Independent Television News Ltd pay a fine for contempt in respect of a broadcast on June 12, 1992 and that Associated Newspapers Ltd, News UK Ltd, Express Newspapers and Westminster Press Ltd pay fines for their several contempts in respect of articles in the Daily Mail, Today, Daily Express and Northern Echo on June 13.
Mr Alan Moses, QC and Mr Philip Havers for the Attorney General; Mr James Guthrie, QC, for ITN; Mr Jonathan Caplan, QC, for Associated Newspapers; Mr Andrew Caldecott, QC, for News UK; Mr James Munby, QC, for Express Newspapers; Mr Richard Rampton, QC and Mr Patrick Moloney for Westminster Press.
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT said that the material complained of concerned two Irishmen who were arrested and charged with the murder on June 7, 1992 of a special constable and the attempted murder of a police constable near Tadcaster. They had been arrested on June 11, 1992 in Pontefract and in the early hours of June 12 were taken to Paddington Green police station.
That evening the ITN programme at 5.40pm said that Patrick Magee who was one of two men wanted in connection with the murder of the officer, was a convicted IRA terrorist who had escaped from Crumlin Road jail in Belfast where he was serving a life sentence for the murder of an SAS officer. His transfer to Paddington Green suggested that he would also face questions about a series of terrorist incidents. A poor quality photograph, intended to be of Magee was also shown.
The next day several national newspapers gave some account of the incident. Those subject to these proceedings had published details of Magee's links with the IRA, his previous conviction for the terrorist murder and his jail-break and period on the run. Only the Northern Echo had not said that he had been convicted of murdering the SAS officer.
The law to be applied was in sections 1 and 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which concerned respectively the strict liability rule and the limitation of the scope of that rule. The court was concerned in particular with section 2(2) which provided that the strict liability rule applied only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Random House Group Ltd
...s 2 of the 1981 Act as the plural in accord with s 6 of the Interpretation Act of 1978.] d See A-G v Independent Television News Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 370 at 381: 'Mr Moses contended that it does not follow that because a risk had been created by the broadcast (on the night before) further pu......
-
Attorney General v Associated Newspapers
...surely follows that the length of time a publication was available for access online is a relevant consideration. In Attorney General v Independent Television News Ltd. [1995] 2 All ER 370 Leggatt LJ drew attention to the shortness of the offending broadcast and its ephemeral nature (382–38......
-
HM Attorney General v The Times Newspapers Ltd
...considered in numerous cases: see for example Attorney General v News Group Newspapers [1987] 1QB 1, Attorney General v ITN and others [1995] 2 All ER 370. iv) In assessing the effect of the time-lapse on the continuing effect of the articles, we accept that the commission of violent offenc......
- Attorney General v MGN Ltd
-
Criminal Contempt, Article 10 and the First Amendment – A Case for Importing Aspects of US Free Speech Jurisprudence?
...454, 477.149. See by contrast the Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.2(2) and the pro-media freedom interpretationsthereof in A.G. vI.T.N. [1995] 1 Cr.App.R.204.; A.G. vM.G.N. Ltd. [1997] 1 All E.R. 456. Inexcess of 3,600 EURO7 MJ 3 (2000) ICriminal Contempt, Article 10 and the First Amendmentet......