BBC (Petitioners)
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 2001 |
| Date | 02 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No 3 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
LJ-G Rodger, Lord Kirkwood, and Lord Abernethy
Justiciary—Contempt of court—Reporting—Order restricting reporting of a case—principles governing the making of an order—Contempt of Court Act 1981, (cap 49), secs 1, 2 and 4—Meaning of “pending” and “imminent”—European Convention on Human Rights, arts 6 and 101
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 Provides in sec 1 a strict liability rule whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court if it tends to interfere with the course of justice in particular proceedings, regardless of intent to do so. In terms of sec 2(1) that rule applies only in relation to publications which create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Subsections (1) and (2) of sec 4 provide “(1) Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith. (2) In any such proceedings the court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for the purpose.” The European Convention on Human Rights provides in art 6 that the press and public can only be excluded from a trial to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. Article 10(2) provides that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression may be “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society…for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
The second respondent stood trial for murder. He incriminated the third respondent. The trial judge made an order requiring that any reporting of any matter showing or tending to show the participation of the third respondent in the events leading to the death of the complainer should be postponed until 24 hours after the conclusion of the second respondent's trial. The petitioners presented a petition to thenobile officium craving the recall and reduction of the order. In the course of the hearing, the first respondent intimated that, having heard the petitioners' submissions, he could not support the order pronounced by the trial judge. Nevertheless, given that the matter was of some general importance and that submissions had been made by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr A For Judicial Review
...of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The cases cited by Mr Clancy included BBC, Petitioners 2002 JC 27 at paras.12 and 13, In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593 at paras.18 and 20, In re Guardian News and......
-
Petition Of A V. The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
...article 10 had to be narrowly construed. The necessity for reporting restrictions had to be "convincingly established" (BBC, Petrs (No. 3) 2002 JC 27, Lord Justice General Rodger at para [13]). The Lord Ordinary identified correctly that the petitioner had to demonstrate a "real as opposed ......
-
Rr, Petitioner
...LO 139; 32 BHRC 1; [2012] Crim LR 375; The Times, 22 December 2011 Anderson v HM Advocate 1974 SLT 239 BBC, Petrs sub nom BBC, Petrs (No 3) 2002 JC 27; 2002 SLT 2; 2001 SCCR 440 Beck, Petr [2010] HCJAC 8; 2010 SLT 519; 2010 SCCR 222; 2010 SCL 568 Begg v HM Advocate sub nom Dreghorn v HM Adv......
-
Luke Mitchell V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...and had been due to meet her on the day of her death. In this connection the Advocate depute drew attention to B.B.C., Petitioners 2002 J.C. 27, particularly paragraph [19]. In that case the court had concluded that an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was unnecessa......