HM Attorney General v Harkins

A knowing breach of a worldwide injunction protecting identities may constitute serious contempt, even where the contemnor misunderstands the full legal consequences of publication. In sentencing, the court must weigh the risk of harm to the protected persons and those who may be mistakenly identified, the need to uphold the rule of law and deter vigilantism, and the extensive reach of internet and social-media publication. Prompt removal, cooperation, admissions, apologies and personal mitigation may justify suspension, but do not make a fine appropriate where the contempt is grave. Future comparable publication is likely to attract an immediate substantial custodial sentence without suspension.

These conjoined committal applications concerned Neil Harkins and Dean Liddle, who published photographs on Facebook and Twitter purporting to identify the former child murderers James Bulger’s killers, in breach of a worldwide injunction protecting their identities. The injunction had been granted in 2001 and reported as Venables v News Group Newspapers [2001] Fam 430. Both respondents admitted knowing of the injunction and admitted contempt. The central issues were the seriousness of the breaches, the appropriate penalty, and whether any custodial sentences should be suspended.

1. Both respondents were guilty of contempt. Each knew of the injunction and deliberately published material purporting to identify the protected persons. The fact that similar material had already been widely circulated did not provide an excuse.

2. The principal aggravating factors were the potentially very serious consequences of publication, including physical harm to the protected persons and mistaken targets; knowledge of the prohibition; participation in a determined internet campaign; and the exceptional reach of social media and the internet.

3. The court was required to uphold the rule of law and deter vigilantism. Punishment is imposed by the court, not by members of the public. The protective purpose and risks underlying the injunction were identified by reference to Venables v News Group Newspapers [2001] Fam 430.

4. A fine was inappropriate given the gravity of the contempt. The appropriate sentence for each respondent was nine months’ imprisonment. Prompt removal of the material, cooperation, admissions, apologies, good character and strong personal mitigation justified the exceptional course of suspending each sentence for fifteen months.

5. The court warned that comparable internet or social-media publication after the judgment would be unlikely to avoid a substantial custodial sentence without suspension.

The judgment describes the prior grant of the worldwide injunction by the Family Division in January 2001, reported as Venables v News Group Newspapers [2001] Fam 430. The present proceedings were first-instance committal applications in the Administrative Court.