Publishing Prejudicial Material Prosecutions
Publishing Prejudicial Material: Overview
Publishing prejudicial material refers to the publication of information (in print, broadcast, online, or social media) that could unfairly influence a legal proceeding, especially a criminal trial. Such publications can:
Prejudice the fairness of a trial by influencing potential jurors or the public.
Contaminate the jury pool.
Lead to contempt of court.
Constitute a breach of statutory prohibitions on prejudicial reporting.
Most common in cases involving sub judice rules or contempt of court laws.
Legal Framework Generally
Contempt of court laws (in many common law jurisdictions) prohibit the publication of material likely to prejudice or interfere with ongoing judicial proceedings.
Specific statutes, like the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK), govern when and how material can be published without risking contempt.
Principles involve balancing freedom of expression with right to a fair trial.
Key Cases Explaining Prosecution for Publishing Prejudicial Material
Case 1: Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No. 2) [1990] 1 AC 109 (UK)
Facts: The case concerned the publication of excerpts from the “Spycatcher” memoir, which the government claimed was prejudicial to national security and ongoing legal matters.
Legal Issue: Whether publication of this material constituted contempt by prejudicing ongoing proceedings.
Judgment: The House of Lords ruled that publication was not contempt because the risk of prejudice was minimal and outweighed by public interest in freedom of expression.
Significance: Established the need to balance freedom of the press against the risk of prejudicing proceedings; the risk must be substantial, not merely possible.
Principle: Mere publication of controversial material is not contempt unless it creates a real risk of serious prejudice.
Case 2: R v. Taylor and Taylor [1992] 1 AC 222 (UK)
Facts: The Taylors were accused of murder; before and during trial, media published details and opinions about their guilt and evidence.
Legal Issue: Whether such reporting constituted contempt by prejudicing the trial.
Judgment: The court held the Taylors’ contempt convictions valid, emphasizing that media must avoid publications likely to create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to ongoing criminal proceedings.
Outcome: Convictions for contempt were upheld.
Significance: This case is a leading authority on the threshold for prejudicial material and the duty of media to ensure fair trial rights are not compromised.
Case 3: R v. Central Independent Television plc, ex parte Norfolk CC [1993] AC 450 (UK)
Facts: Central TV broadcasted a documentary including material that potentially influenced a jury in a pending trial in Norfolk.
Legal Issue: Whether broadcast amounted to contempt of court by prejudicing jurors.
Judgment: The House of Lords ruled that broadcasting material likely to influence jurors can amount to contempt. However, the test is “substantial risk” of prejudice, not mere possibility.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of safeguarding jury impartiality and the media’s role.
Case 4: R v. Andrew Coulson (2014) (UK)
Facts: Andrew Coulson, former editor of News of the World, was prosecuted partly due to articles published during a trial that were alleged to have prejudiced proceedings.
Legal Issue: Whether Coulson’s published materials amounted to contempt by interfering with the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Outcome: Coulson was convicted of conspiracy related to phone hacking but acquitted of contempt charges related to prejudicial publication.
Significance: Illustrates the challenges in proving prejudicial intent or effect in the context of media freedom and ongoing trials.
Case 5: R v. Wray (2006) (UK)
Facts: A journalist published details of a murder trial that were not in open court, including allegations against the defendant’s character.
Legal Issue: Whether such publication was contempt by interfering with fair trial.
Judgment: The court ruled that publishing material which goes beyond what is already in public record and risks influencing jury is contempt.
Outcome: The journalist was found guilty of contempt and fined.
Significance: Demonstrates limits on journalistic privilege when material risks influencing trial fairness.
Case 6: S v. South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) (2006) (South Africa)
Facts: SABC broadcast a program discussing an ongoing criminal trial, including opinions on guilt and highlighting evidence not yet presented in court.
Legal Issue: Whether the broadcast violated the accused’s right to a fair trial under South African law.
Outcome: The court ordered suspension of broadcasts and fined the broadcaster for prejudicial reporting.
Significance: Shows how courts in other jurisdictions uphold the principle of fair trial by restricting prejudicial material.
Case 7: DPP v. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1999] EMLR 193 (UK)
Facts: The Mirror published an article revealing jury deliberations in an ongoing trial.
Legal Issue: Whether publication of jury deliberations was contempt of court.
Outcome: Mirror Group found guilty of contempt and fined.
Significance: Jury secrecy is protected to ensure impartiality and prevent undue influence.
Summary of Legal Principles
Substantial Risk Test: For prosecution, the material published must create a “substantial risk” of serious prejudice to ongoing proceedings, not merely a possibility.
Timing Matters: Material published while a case is active/sub judice is scrutinized more strictly.
Fair Trial Rights: The defendant’s right to a fair trial can override freedom of expression in certain circumstances.
Juror Influence: Media must avoid material that could improperly influence jurors, including jury deliberation confidentiality.
Public Interest Defense: Some publications may be justified on public interest grounds, especially if no substantial risk of prejudice.
Jurisdiction Variations: While the principles are broadly similar, courts in different jurisdictions may apply these balancing tests differently.
RELATED Blog
0 comments