HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd

For contempt under the strict liability rule, the appropriate sanction depends on the seriousness of the publication, the cause of the error, its consequences for the administration of justice, the apology, remedial steps, costs and analogous penalties. A serious publication may warrant a substantial fine even where prejudice is avoided by changing the trial venue. The court should distinguish between a systemic failure and an isolated failure of an otherwise adequate compliance system. The highest penalties generally arise where contempt causes an aborted or postponed trial, or a permanent stay. Indemnity costs may be ordered in contempt proceedings, but such an order is discretionary and does not establish a general rule.

Her Majesty's Attorney General brought contempt proceedings against MGN Ltd concerning publication in the Yorkshire edition of the Daily Mirror of an article about Mustaf Jama, who was awaiting trial for murder and related offences. The article referred to alleged previous convictions, prison conduct, extremism and his status as a high-risk prisoner. It led to the trial venue being moved from Leeds to Newcastle Crown Court because of the risk of prejudicial recall by potential jurors.

MGN Ltd admitted and apologised for breaching the strict liability rule under sections 1 and 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The Divisional Court therefore determined the appropriate penalty and costs.

1. The court found the contempt serious. The article contained numerous potentially damaging statements about a defendant awaiting trial in a highly publicised murder case. The risk of prejudice was sufficiently real to require the trial venue to be changed, although the contempt did not cause an aborted trial, permanent stay or established trial delay.

2. The court accepted that the following matters were relevant to penalty: the nature and seriousness of the error; whether it reflected systemic failure or inadequate concern for the administration of justice; the consequences for the trial; the promptness and terms of the apology; remedial action; the financial effect of costs; and penalties in analogous cases.

3. The error arose from a single failure in a generally satisfactory legal-vetting system. That materially mitigated the penalty, but the failure remained difficult to understand because the risk of prejudice should have been obvious even without the legal warnings. The full and unreserved apology, assistance to the court and steps taken to prevent repetition were also taken into account.

4. Analogous contempts involving aborted trials, postponed trials or permanent stays generally attract the highest penalties. Attorney General v Mirror Group Newspapers Limited (2002) EWHC 907 was materially different because it involved deliberate publication during a jury retirement and issues of racial aggravation. Its seriousness and mitigating features were nevertheless relevant comparators.

5. A fine of £25,000 was imposed. MGN Ltd was ordered to pay the Attorney General's costs on an indemnity basis. The order was expressly not intended to establish a future rule that indemnity costs are standard in contempt proceedings; it reflected, in part, the defendant's initial denial of liability.

First-instance contempt proceedings in the Divisional Court. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.