Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1)

A judge may refer to the Attorney-General a publication alleged to interfere with the administration of justice. The power need not be exercised where a reference would not assist the Attorney-General, particularly where the matter is already publicly documented and the Attorney-General may act independently. A third party may potentially commit contempt by deliberately frustrating the purpose of an order made in proceedings between other parties, although the court did not need to determine the legal submissions on that issue.

An applicant sought a reference to the Attorney-General concerning an article published by Associated Newspapers Ltd about an injunction protecting the identity of a person alleged to have had an affair with Sir Frederick Goodwin. The applicant contended that the publication identified, or tended to identify, her and impeded the purpose of the injunction. The publication also contained allegedly false information and commentary suggesting a public interest in disclosure. The court considered whether it should refer the publication for possible contempt proceedings.

1. Application refused. The court declined to refer the publication to the Attorney-General.
2. The court recognised that a judge can refer a publication alleged to interfere with the administration of justice. The relevant form of alleged contempt may involve a third party deliberately frustrating the purpose of an order made against another party. The court referred to Attorney-General v Punch [2003] 1 AC 1046 and the authorities discussed there.
3. It was unnecessary to determine the parties’ submissions on the law of third-party contempt. The decisive consideration was practical utility. In the circumstances, a reference would not assist the Attorney-General. The applicant remained free to refer the matter herself, and the Attorney-General could act of his own motion.
4. The court noted that the publication had received extensive coverage in the press and other media and that public judgments were available. The judgment would also be available to the Attorney-General if he chose to consider the matter.
5. The court further observed that evidence of misuse of corporate power might have provided a powerful argument for discharging the injunction, referring to Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 295; [2008] 1 QB 103. No such issue required determination on the application.