Attorney-General v. Associated Newspapers Limited and Others

The House of Lords held that the word "disclose" in section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 bears its ordinary and comprehensive meaning and is not restricted to disclosure by a juror. Section 8(1) therefore covers publication by a newspaper of particulars of statements, opinions, arguments or votes made in jury deliberations where those particulars were not already public knowledge. The court relied on the statutory text, the background mischief (including previous cases and reports concerned with preserving jury secrecy), and the legislative history of the Bill to conclude that Parliament intended to prohibit both the initial revelation by a juror and subsequent publication. The House also considered and rejected the appellants' Article 10 argument and declined to interfere with the fines imposed by the Divisional Court.

This was an appeal from the Divisional Court which had found the appellants in contempt of court under section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and imposed fines. The Attorney-General brought proceedings against the publisher, the editor and a journalist of the Mail on Sunday alleging that an article published in July 1992 disclosed particulars of jury deliberations in the Blue Arrow fraud trial.

The agreed facts included that the appellants received transcripts of interviews with jurors from researchers (who had interviewed jurors without the appellants' prior involvement), that the appellants did not obtain material directly from jurors, and that the journalists published the material believing it to be in the public interest and protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Nature of the claim: contempt proceedings under section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 seeking a declaration of contempt and fines for publication of jury deliberations.
• Issues framed: (i) whether "disclose" in section 8(1) is limited to disclosure by a juror or extends generally to publication by third parties; (ii) whether any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the narrower interpretation on grounds including Article 10; and (iii) proportionality of the fines.

The House reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "disclose" includes revealing or making known and therefore covers publication by newspapers as well as a juror's revelation to another. The court examined pre-legislative background, prior authority and the drafts of clause 8 of the Bill to conclude Parliament intended a comprehensive prohibition on revealing jury deliberations, including publication. The judges noted the public-interest aim of preserving jury secrecy to protect the administration of justice and held that permitting publication where jurors had revealed deliberations would undermine that aim. The appellants' reliance on Article 10 and on alleged ambiguity was rejected on the basis that the statutory meaning is clear and, accordingly, the interference with freedom of expression fell within the permissible restrictions in Article 10(2). Finally, the House declined to disturb the fines imposed below.

Appeal dismissed. The House held that "disclose" in section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 should be given its ordinary broad meaning to include publication by newspapers of particulars of jury deliberations, and therefore the appellants had committed contempt. The court rejected the arguments based on ambiguity and Article 10 and left the Divisional Court fines undisturbed.

Divisional Court (Beldam L.J. and Tudor Evans J.) found contempt and imposed fines; reported [1993] 3 W.L.R. 74. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted and the appeals were dismissed by the House of Lords on 3 February 1994.