Scandalising the Court

This includes anything calculated to bring a court or judge into contempt, sometimes called "scandalising the court" (or in Scots law, "murmuring judges"), publishing details of jury deliberations or proceedings in camera (or anything else that should not be published), using a tape recorder or camera in court, and so on.

R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36, DC

An editor D wrote an article commenting on a trial that had taken place before Darling J, and including some scurrilous personal abuse of the judge and his fitness for that office. Accepting D's apology and fining him ?100 for contempt of court, Lord Russell CJ said anything calculated to bring a judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of court. But judges are open to criticism, and reasonable argument or expostulation would not be treated as a contempt of court.

R v Commissioner of Police ex p Blackburn (No.2) [1968] 2 All ER 319, CA

A applied for an order of mandamus against the Commissioner to compel him to enforce the gaming laws; the judge and the Court of Appeal refused the order sought but said the Commissioner had a duty to enforce the law. Quintin Hogg MP then wrote an article in Punch in which he criticised the courts (and particularly the Court of Appeal) for their unrealistic, contradictory and erroneous decisions and their habit of blaming everyone but themselves, and A now sought to have H committed for contempt of court. Lord Denning MR said the court should never use contempt proceedings as a means of upholding its own dignity; H was entitled to make his criticism, and even the errors of fact did not make the article a contempt of court.

Under s.4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 the name of the complainant in a case of rape cannot be disclosed without the court's permission, and similarly under s.49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and s.97 of the Children Act 1989 publication is forbidden of anything likely to identify a child charged with a criminal offence or involved in certain other court proceedings. A court has further powers under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to order non-disclosure of matter not disclosed in court, such as the identity of a witness in a blackmail case. However, a Practice Note issued in 1983 indicates that any such order should be put into writing, specifying exactly what material is covered, for what period, and the purpose of the ban.

R v Socialist Worker ex p Attorney-General [1975] 1 All ER 142, DC

A man J was tried for blackmail, and the trial judge ordered that two witnesses should be identified only as Y and Z. The Socialist Worker published an article disclosing the witnesses' real identities, and the Attorney-General brought proceedings for contempt of court. Lord Widgery CJ said the judge had power to make such an order where there was a danger that the witness might not otherwise come forward, and RR's defiance of the judge's direction had been a blatant affront to the authority of the court.

Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine [1979] 1 All ER 745, HL

In committal proceedings in the "ABC" official secrets case, the magistrates allowed a witness to give evidence under the pseudonym "Colonel B", but were advised by their clerk that they could not give directions regarding publication outside court. The content of B's evidence enabled journalists to deduce his true identity, and this was published in DD's magazine. The Attorney-General applied to have DD committed for contempt of court, but the House of Lords allowed DD's appeal against a fine imposed by the Divisional Court. The magistrates had not made it sufficiently clear the purpose of their decision, and that publication of anything tending to identify the witness would impede the administration of justice; consequently there was no contempt.

Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.8

It is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.

Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers [1994] 1 All ER 556, HL

DD published in The Mail on Sunday an article referring to statements made and opinions expressed by jurors in the course of their deliberations in a certain fraud trial; they had not obtained this information directly, but from a third party who had interviewed some of the jurors under the pretence that it was serious academic research. The House of Lords, affirming the decision of the Divisional Court, upheld fines of £10k, £20k and £30k on the journalist, editor and publisher respectively. The is no reason to give the word "disclose" anything other than its natural meaning, said Lord Lowry, and it applies to disclosure by anyone, not just by a juror.