HM Attorney General v ITV Central Ltd

Broadcasting a defendant’s serious previous conviction on the day of a forthcoming criminal trial may constitute contempt under the strict liability rule where it creates a substantial risk that the trial will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The simplicity or accidental nature of the error does not remove its seriousness. In sentencing, the court must balance mitigation, including prompt admissions, contrition, remedial action and voluntary payment of consequential costs, against the need for deterrence and the importance of protecting the administration of justice. The need to prevent disclosure of defendants’ antecedents in such circumstances is a basic professional obligation.

HM Attorney General applied for an order for committal or other relief against ITV Central Ltd for contempt of court. On the morning fixed for the murder trial of five defendants, ITV broadcast three reports stating that one defendant was serving a life sentence for a previous murder.

The trial judge postponed the trial for two weeks but declined to move it to another venue. The defendant admitted the breach, apologised, dismissed the journalist responsible, changed its procedures and voluntarily accepted liability for £37,014.31 in costs thrown away by the adjournment. The issue before the Divisional Court was the appropriate penalty.

1. Contempt established. The parties accepted that the strict liability rule in sections 1 and 2(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applied. The broadcasts created a very real risk that potential jurors would hear that a defendant had a previous murder conviction. Publication on three occasions on the morning of trial was therefore a serious contempt.
2. Seriousness. The fact that the disclosure resulted from a basic mistake, rather than deliberate sensationalism or an attempt to obtain an exclusive, did not reduce the inherent seriousness of revealing the antecedents of a defendant facing trial for murder. The consequences extended beyond the costs of the adjournment and included disruption to the administration of justice, delay and stress for those involved in other cases.
3. Mitigation. The court gave substantial weight to the defendant’s prompt acceptance of responsibility, unqualified apology, previously unblemished record, disciplinary action, staff training, procedural safeguards and voluntary agreement to pay the costs thrown away. The postponement, rather than abandonment, of the trial was also relevant.
4. Penalty. A deterrent sentence was nevertheless required, both in the defendant’s case and to signal to the media generally the importance of withholding previous convictions from publication in these circumstances. The defendant was fined £25,000.
5. The defendant was also ordered to pay the Attorney General’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed.