HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd & Anor

Contempt of court may be established where publication creates a substantial risk of impeding or prejudicing the course of justice, even though the risk ultimately does not materialise. The absence of actual prejudice is therefore not determinative. The risks of impeding justice and prejudicing the process are distinct, although they may overlap where a trial takes place. A person arrested on suspicion of crime must not be vilified. The court may treat deliberate publication despite a clear warning, the seriousness and cumulative effect of the articles, and the absence or lateness of an apology as aggravating features when fixing a fine.

The Attorney General brought contempt proceedings against MGN Limited and News Group Newspapers Limited concerning newspaper articles published about a person arrested on suspicion of a serious crime. The court had found that two Daily Mirror articles and one article in The Sun constituted contempt by creating substantial risks to the administration of justice.

This judgment concerned the appropriate penalties and consequential orders. The court considered the significance of the fact that justice was ultimately not impeded or prejudiced, the prior warning given by the Attorney General, the relative seriousness of the publications, apologies and the respondents’ positions on liability.

1. Nature of the contempt. The court held that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is concerned with substantial risks that the administration of justice will be impeded or prejudiced. The two concepts are distinct, although they commonly overlap where a trial takes place. The fact that the risks did not ultimately eventuate was attributable to good fortune and did not eliminate the contempt. (paras [1]–[3])
2. Vilification of an arrested person. The court rejected the submission that the fading effect of publicity and the independence of juries meant that almost anything could be published. In every case where a person has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, the person must not be vilified. (paras [4]–[6])
3. Penalty. The clear warning broadcast by the Attorney General, the decision nevertheless to publish, the more extreme and cumulative nature of the Daily Mirror coverage, and the absence of any guilty plea or equivalent acknowledgement were aggravating considerations. The Sun’s late apology was taken into account, but did not avoid a fine. (paras [4]–[9])
4. The fine imposed on MGN Limited was £50,000 and that imposed on News Group Newspapers Limited was £18,000. The respondents were ordered to pay the Attorney General’s costs on the standard basis, shared equally. Leave to appeal was refused, although time was extended to 16 September 2011 for any application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act. (paras [9]–[11])

This was a first-instance decision on penalty following findings that the publications constituted contempt of court. Leave to appeal was refused. Time was extended to 16 September 2011 for an application to the Supreme Court under section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act.