Attorney-general warns press over contempt

The attorney-general has sounded his concern over “the increasing tendency of the press to test the boundaries” over the reporting of criminal cases.

Speaking at City University in London on Thursday, Dominic Grieve QC said it appeared at times that the press “had lost any sense of internal constraint and felt able, indeed entitled, to print what they wished, shielded by the right of ‘freedom of expression’ without any of the concomitant responsibilities”.

Mr Grieve made his remarks at a time when the media are facing unprecedented scrutiny about their practices in the Leveson inquiry and amid a growing public backlash from the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

In the past year, Mr Grieve has instigated two high-profile contempt of court cases against tabloid newspapers.

This is in sharp contrast to the previous decade when such legal actions were extremely rare and media prosecutions were brought only where it was thought that publication posed a serious risk of prejudice to a criminal trial.

In July, the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and The Sun £18,000 after the newspapers were found guilty of contempt of court for articles relating to the killing of Jo Yeates, the Bristol landscape architect.

The coverage in The Sun and Mirror focused on her landlord Christopher Jefferies, who was under arrest at the time. He was later released without charge and was entirely innocent of any involvement.

Mr Grieve said Mr Jefferies had been subjected to a “torrent” of “highly prejudicial” reports.

On a another issue, he said it was an “open question” whether something said in parliament that breached a court order could then be reported by the media using the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Earlier this year, the media were able to report that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former RBS chief executive, had obtained a “superinjunction” after an MP revealed his name in parliament.

Mr Grieve said: “The question has yet to be authoritatively decided, but will shortly be considered further by parliament. But in the interim: writer beware!”

He also referred to the impact of the internet, noting that he had brought a prosecution of a juror who chatted with an acquitted defendant on Facebook.

He noted that some internet users believed “so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. This is mistaken.”

The attorney-general made his comments as new research from Sweet & Maxwell legal publishers showed that the number of public figures using privacy arguments to protect their identity in court actions had leapt from only two in 2009 to 24 in the year to May 31.