Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1990 |
| Date | 27 February 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Fox, Lord Justice Ralph Gibson and Lord Justice Nicholls
Contempt of court - injunction - publication of Spycatcher extracts
Although The Independent and The Sunday Times were in contempt of court in publishing material from Peter Wright's book, Spycatcher, in the knowledge of an existing injunction against publication of such material by other newspapers, the circumstances of the case were so exceptional that, as a matter of justice, it would not be proper to impose any penalty for the contempt.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing appeals by the pubishers and editor of The Independent, the publishers and editor of The Sunday Times and the publishers and editor of the London Daily News from decisions of Mr Justice Morritt (The Times May 9, 1989) made upon applications for committal for contempt of court by the Attorney General.
Mr Richard Aikens, QC and Miss Adrienne Page for The Independent; Mr Anthony Lester, QC and Mr David Pannick for The Sunday Times; Mr David Pannick for the London Daily News; Mr John Laws and Mr Christopher Katkowski for the Attorney General.
LORD JUSTICE FOX said that the judge held that the publishers of The Independent and The Sunday Times and their respective editors were guilty of contempt of court and imposed fines of £50,000 on each newspaper.
In the case of the London Daily News, the Attorney General did not, at the hearing, seek any substantive order. The judge, however, refused to make any order for costs against the Attorney General.
Peter Wright was a member of the British Security Service from 1955 to 1976 when he resigned. In September 1985 the Attorney General began proceedings in New South Wales to prevent him and his publisher from publishing his book Spycatcher which contained an account of alleged irregularities and illegalities by members of the security service during his period of employment. Mr Wright and his publishers gave an undertaking not to publish pending the hearing of the claim for an injunction.
On June 22 and 23, 1986 The Observer and The Guardian respectively published articles giving the outline of Mr Wright's allegations.
On June 27 the Attorney General obtained in England ex parte injunctions prohibiting disclosure by the publishers of those journals material obtained by Mr Wright in his capacity as a member of the British Security Service and which they knew or had reasonable grounds to believe to have come or been obtained directly or indirectly from Mr Wright ("Wright material").
On July 11, 1986 the inter partes hearing took place before Mr Justice Millett, who continued the injunctions until trial. On July 25 the Court of
Appeal (The Times July 26, 1986) dismissed an appeal by the newspapers and upheld the injunctions ("the Millett injunctions").
The trial of the Australian proceedings took place before Mr Justice Powell, who on March 13, 1987 gave judgment dismissing the Attorney General's action. Undertakings by Mr Wright and his publishers not to publish were, however, continued pending appeal.
Thus far, therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A-G v Punch Ltd and Another
...General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191, 203D, 206G-H, and, for the latter part, Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing plc [1997] 1 WLR 927, 936. Lord Phillips MR neatly identified the rationale of this form of contempt, at [2001] QB 1028, 1055, para......
-
Mohammed Shazad v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...fourth, by doing so the juror risked prejudicing the due administration of justice. All of that is common ground and set out in Attorney-General v Times Newspaper [1992] 1 AC 191, Attorney-General v Times Newspaper [1974] AC 273, Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Ltd [1998] Ch, Attorn......