HM Attorney General v ITV Central Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by HM Attorney General for an order of committal or other appropriate sanction against Defendant for contempt of court arising from a news broadcast on 2 October 2007. On that date, the trial of five defendants charged with murder was scheduled to commence at Leicester Crown Court. The trial had been relocated from another Midlands venue due to a previous conviction of one defendant, referred to as Defendant A, for murder.

On the morning of the trial, Defendant broadcast a news item during a regional breakfast news programme covering the East and West Midlands, including Leicester. The broadcast, repeated three times, disclosed that Defendant A was currently serving a life sentence for a prior murder conviction. The broadcast lasted approximately 23 seconds each time and included details of the current charges and Defendant A's prior conviction.

The trial judge was informed of the broadcast and, following applications by the defendants, adjourned the applications and later postponed the trial by two weeks. The judge referred the contempt issue to the Attorney General. Defendant promptly supplied particulars of the broadcast and issued an unqualified apology, acknowledging the serious breach and initiating an internal inquiry.

The trial eventually concluded in January 2008 with convictions of all five defendants. An application to admit Defendant A’s prior conviction as evidence was refused at trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant's broadcast constituted contempt of court under the strict liability rule in Section 2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 by creating a substantial risk of serious impediment or prejudice to the course of justice in the pending trial.
2. The appropriate sanction for the contempt, considering mitigating factors and the need for deterrence in the media regarding publication of previous convictions in active criminal proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• Expressed an unqualified and prompt apology acknowledging the serious and basic nature of the error in broadcasting the previous conviction.
• Highlighted mitigating factors including prompt acceptance of guilt, an unblemished record regarding contempt since 1993, and the absence of sensationalism or pursuit of exclusivity.
• Emphasized disciplinary action taken against the responsible journalist, including dismissal, and implementation of enhanced editorial safeguards.
• Noted voluntary acceptance to pay costs caused by the adjournment, assessed at £37,014.31.
• Argued that deterrence was not necessary in their case due to prompt corrective measures, though acknowledged a general deterrent message to the media was important.
• Contended the error led to postponement rather than abandonment of the trial, minimizing the impact.

Attorney General's Position

• Asserted that a fine was the only appropriate sentence for contempt in this case.
• Accepted the application of the strict liability rule under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
• Agreed on the order for costs to be assessed if not agreed.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the Defendant’s broadcast disclosed a previous conviction of a defendant on the very day the trial was due to begin, constituting a serious breach of the strict liability rule under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The broadcast created a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice by potentially influencing members of the jury and disrupting the trial process.

The court acknowledged the Defendant’s immediate acceptance of guilt, apology, and remedial actions, including dismissal of the responsible journalist and procedural changes to prevent recurrence. The court noted the voluntary payment of costs caused by the adjournment, which served as a form of punishment not available in earlier cases due to recent regulatory changes.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the gravity of the contempt given the serious nature of the charges and the prior conviction published. The disruption caused extended beyond the adjournment, affecting court scheduling and other cases. The court also considered the need to send a clear deterrent message to the media about the importance of withholding publication of antecedents in ongoing criminal proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court imposed a fine of £25,000 on Defendant for contempt of court.

The court ordered that costs incurred by the Attorney General be paid by Defendant, to be assessed if not agreed, with payment to be made within 14 days. This decision reflects a balance between acknowledging Defendant’s prompt remedial actions and the seriousness of the contempt. The ruling serves as a clear warning to media entities about strict compliance with the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to protect the integrity of criminal trials. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing strict liability principles.