1he Sunday 1lmes v unlLed

klngdom
8y
lay
Sarah
Pussaln
1he Sunday 1lmes v uk
W uaLe of !udgemenL Aprll 26 1979
W AppllcanLs Lhe publlsher edlLor and a group
of [ournallsLs of 1be 5ooJoy 1lmes
W SLaLe unlLed klngdom
keywords
rlor resLralnL
ConLempL of courL
1rlal by newspaper
ln[uncLlon order
resumpLlon of lnnocence
lacLs
W 8eLween 19 and 1961 ulsLlllers Company
(8lochemlcals) LLd manufacLured and markeLed drugs
for pregnanL women ln Lhe unlLed klngdom
W Women who Look Lhese drugs gave blrLh Lo chlldren
wlLh deformlLles belleved Lo be caused by an
lngredlenL called Lhalldomlde
W arenLs of Lhe deformed chlldren soughL wrlLs agalnsL
ulsLlllers ulsLlllers seLLled wlLh some ln 196 buL by
1971 39 more clalms were pendlng agalnsL ulsLlllers
W ulsLlllers proposed Lo esLabllsh a charlLable LrusL fund
for all Lhe deformed chlldren noL covered by Lhe 196
seLLlemenL
lacLs
W Cn 24 SepLember 1972 1be 5ooJoy 1lmes carrled an
arLlcle enLlLled Oot 1bollJomlJe cbllJteo A coose fot
Notloool 5bome Lhls examlned Lhe seLLlemenL
proposals
uescrlbed Lhem as groLesquely ouL of proporLlon Lo Lhe
ln[urles suffered
crlLlclsed varlous aspecLs of Lngllsh law on Lhe recovery
and assessmenL of damages ln personal ln[ury cases
complalned of Lhe delay LhaL had elapsed slnce Lhe blrLhs
and
appealed Lo ulsLlllers Lo make a more generous offer
W A fooLnoLe Lo Lhe arLlcle announced LhaL lL would Lrace
how Lhe Lragedy occurred ln a fuLure arLlcle
uomesLlc roceedlngs
W AfLer ulsLlllers made a formal complalnL
LhaL Lhe arLlcle of SepL 24 1972 consLlLuLed
conLempL of courL ln vlew of pendlng
llLlgaLlon ALLorney Ceneral lssued wrlL
agalnsL 1lmes newspapers
W 1he ulvlslonal CourL of Lhe Cueens 8ench
ulvlslon granLed Lhe ALLorneyCenerals
appllcaLlon for an ln[uncLlon resLralnlng
publlcaLlon of Lhe fuLure arLlcle noLed ln Lhe
fooLnoLe on Lhe ground LhaL lL would
consLlLuLe conLempL of courL
ConLempL of CourL
W under a conLempL of courL sancLlon courLs may
prevenL or punlsh conducL whlch obsLrucLs
pre[udlces or abuses Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce
ln a parLlcular case or generally
W lL exlsLs Lo proLecL Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce
and Lhe fundamenLal supremacy of Lhe
law
W 1he rules of conLempL should noL lnhlblL freedom
of speech more Lhan reasonably necessary
ueclslon of Lhe ulvlslonal CourL
W CranLed ln[uncLlon on november 17 1972
W 8easonlng
1lme's arLlcle mlghL prevenL due and lmparLlal
admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce by pre[udlclng Lhe free cholce and
conducL of a parLy Lo Lhe llLlgaLlon
1he Sunday 1lmes' moLlve was Lo enllsL publlc oplnlon Lo
exerL pressure on ulsLlllers and cause Lhem Lo make a
more generous seLLlemenL 1hls was a dellberaLe aLLempL
Lo lnfluence Lhe seLLlemenL of pendlng proceedlngs and
Lhus publlcaLlon of Lhe arLlcle would creaLe a serlous rlsk
of lnLerference wlLh ulsLlllers freedom of acLlon ln Lhe
llLlgaLlon and would be a clear conLempL
ueclslon of Lhe CourL of Appeal
W CourL of Appeal dlscharged Lhe ln[uncLlon
W 8easonlng
W roposed arLlcle dld noL creaLe a rlsk of pre[udlce for
any pendlng llLlgaLlon because llLlgaLlon had been
dormanL for years
W CourL dlfferenLlaLed beLween llLlgaLlon and seLLlemenL
negoLlaLlons under conLempL of courL laws
W 8alance publlc lnLeresL ln maLLer of naLlonal concern
wlLh rlghL Lo falr Lrlal and seLLlemenL
ln Lhls case publlc lnLeresL Lo lnformaLlon
ouLwelghed pre[udlce Lo parLles
ueclslon of Lhe Pouse of Lords
W Pouse granLed ln[uncLlon on !uly 1 1973 afLer
revlewlng Lhe drafL arLlcle on Lhe flndlng LhaL
Lhere would be a conLempL of courL had Lhe
arLlcle been publlshed
W Also sLaLed LhaL
1he CourL of Appeal had wrongly descrlbed
Lhe acLlons as dormanL' slnce seLLlemenL
negoLlaLlons were ln hand ln Lurn exerLlng
lmproper pressure on Lhe dlsLlllers Lo seLLle for
a hlgher clalm hence consLlLuLlng conLempL of
courL
Pouse of Lords ueclslon
W Lmphaslzed LhaL a balance musL be sLruck
beLween Lhe pub||c |nterest |n freedom of
speech and the pub||c |nterest |n protect|ng the
adm|n|strat|on of [ust|ce from |nterference
W 1here should noL be a Lrlal by newspaper
Lhe courLs owe lL Lo Lhe parLles Lo proLecL Lhem
elLher from Lhe pre[udlces of pre[udgmenL or
parLlclpaLlon ln preLrlal publlclLy
ArLlcle 10
W Lveryone has Lhe rlghL Lo freedom of expresslon
Lhls rlghL shall lnclude freedom Lo hold oplnlons
and Lo recelve and lmparL lnformaLlon and ldeas
wlLhouL lnLerference by publlc auLhorlLy and
regardless of fronLlers
W 1he exerclse of Lhese freedoms may be sub[ecL
Lo condlLlons resLrlcLlons or penalLles as are
prescr|bed by |aw and are necessary |n a
democrat|c soc|ety ln Lhe lnLeresLs of
ma|nta|n|ng the author|ty and |mpart|a||ty of the
[ud|c|ary
IlolaLlon of ArLlcle 10?
W @he app||cants c|a|m to be the v|ct|ms of a v|o|at|on of
Art|c|e 10 of Lhe ConvenLlon 1hey allege LhaL Lhls
vlolaLlon arlses
llrsLly by Lhe ln[uncLlon granLed by Lhe Lngllsh courLs
Secondly due Lo Lhe overbreadLh and lack of preclslon of
Lhe law of conLempL of courL
W 1he Commlsslon found a vlolaLlon on Lhe flrsL ground
W As regards Lhe second ground Lhe Commlsslon found
Lhe appllcanLs and oLher medla were conLlnulng
vlcLlms of Lhe uncerLalnLy of Lhe law of conLempL of
courL
LxcepLlons Lo ArLlcle 10
W ArLlcle 10(2) provlde excepLlons and resLrlcLs
Lhe rlghL Lo freedom of speech lL presupposes
a deflnlLlon ln domesLlc law whlch ls
sufflclenLly clear and unamblguous Lhus
permlLLlng anyone exerclslng hls freedom of
expresslon Lo acL wlLh reasonab|e certa|nty as
to the consequences |n |aw of h|s conduct
Jas the |nterference prescr|bed by |aw?
W 'rescr|bed by |aw
1he law musL be adequaLely accesslble
A norm cannoL be regarded as a law unless lL ls formulaLed
wlLh sufflclenL preclslon Lo enable Lhe clLlzen Lo regulaLe hls
conducL he musL be able Lo foresee Lhe consequences whlch a
glven acLlon may enLall
W 1he appllcanLs argue lotet ollo LhaL Lhe law of conLempL
of courL was so vague and uncerLaln LhaL Lhe resLralnL
lmposed cannoL be regarded as prescrlbed by law 1he
CovernmenL plead ln Lhe alLernaLlve LhaL on Lhe facLs of
Lhe case Lhe resLralnL was aL leasL rough|y foreseeab|e
LCLP8 ueclslon
W ln Lhe presenL case Lhe quesLlon wheLher Lhese requ|rements of
access|b|||ty and foreseeab|||ty were saLlsfled ls compllcaLed by Lhe
facL LhaL dlfferenL prlnclples were relled on by Lhe varlous Law Lords
concerned
W 1he ulvlslonal CourL had applled Lhe 'pressure pr|nc|p|e'
W CerLaln members of Lhe Pouse of Lords also alluded Lo Lhls
prlnclple whereas oLhers preferred Lhe pre[udgment pr|nc|p|e
W -everthe|ess the Court has a|so noted that the " pre[udgment
pr|nc|p|e" never before const|tuted the rotio of an Lng||sh [ud|c|a|
dec|s|on in o comporob/e cose
Jas the |n[unct|on necessary for ma|nta|n|ng the author|ty and
|mpart|a||ty of the [ud|c|ary and]or for protect|ng the r|ghts of others?
W ulscusslons and commenLs relaLlng Lo Lhe lssue of negllgence
were dlrecLly or lndlrecLly venLllaLed ln Lhe press for Len years
and had recenLly been commenLed on ln arllamenL whlch dld
noL LreaL Lhe lssues lnvolved as sob joJlce 1herefore lL could
noL be accepLed LhaL ulsLlllers would have been broughL under
pressure lL was also noLed LhaL lf Lhere had been a proper
LesLlng of Lhe drug before markeLlng Lhey could easlly have
proved lL and rebuLLed Lhe allegaLlon of negllgence
W 1he Luropean CourL also expressed Lhe vlew LhaL Lhe sLandard
of Lhe [udlclary ln Lngland ls Loo hlgh Lo be lnfluenced by any
publlcaLlon of Lhe press lL followed LhaL Lhe granL of an
ln[uncLlon was Lherefore noL necessary under ArLlcle 10(2)
ulssenLlng Cplnlons

W ln Lhe dlssenLlng oplnlon Lhey belleve LhaL Lhe Pouse of Lords
declslon was correcL and Lhe ln[uncLlon only wenL as far as
necessary
W lL ls for Lhe naLlonal auLhorlLles Lo make Lhe lnlLlal assessmenL
of Lhe danger and Lo [udge whaL resLrlcLlve measures are
necessary ln Lhls case lL ls undenlable LhaL lL should be a
declslon for Lhe Pouse of Lords as Lhey are beLLer quallfled
W 1he arLlcle was of a speclal characLer as lL conLalned new
lnformaLlon and gave evldence LhaL was presenLed ln a way Lo
suggesL Lhere was negllgence on Lhe parL of Lhe ulsLlllers and
so was more llkely Lo glve rlse Lo pre[udgmenL
ulssenLlng Cplnlons
W 1he naLlonal courL was ln a beLLer poslLlon Lo declde how
llkely a declslon was ln Lhe case of Lhe parenLs who refused
Lo seLLle and Lherefore how dormanL Lhe case was
W 1he resLrlcLlon was only ln relaLlon Lo Lhe scope of Lhe
sub[ecL maLLer and duraLlon of Lhe case lL was noL a
general resLralnL on Lhe dlscusslon of Lhe lssue
W 1he Pouse of Lords foresaw LhaL Lhe slLuaLlon surroundlng
Lhe resLralnL could change and so lL could be wlLhdrawn ln
Lhe fuLure
ComparaLlve Analysls
1ourancheau and !uly v lrance 24 november
200
W reLrlal publlclLy secreL of crlmlnal lnvesLlgaLlon
courL reporLlng pre[udlclal effecL on [ury
W 1ourancheau publlshed an arLlcle abouL a murder
case whlch was sLlll under lnvesLlgaLlon whlch
conLalned exLracLs from Lhe suspecLs' sLaLemenLs
and oLher commenLs conLalned ln Lhe case flle
ComparaLlve Analysls
W SecLlon 3 of Lhe ress AcL 11 prohlblLs Lhe publlcaLlon
of any documenL of crlmlnal proceedlngs unLll Lhe day of
Lhe hearlng ln courL
W 1ourancheau and Lhe dally newspaper were found gullLy
and boLh suspecLs had been convlcLed ln Lhe murder case
and senLenced Lo lmprlsonmenL
W ln Lhls case Lhe CourL found LhaL Lhe convlcLlon of
1ourancheau and Lhe newspaper was noL a vlolaLlon of
ArLlcle 10 1hls was because Lhe scope of Lhe prohlblLlon
was clearly deflned ln s 3 ress AcL 11 ln Lerms of boLh
conLenL and duraLlon
ComparaLlve Analysls
W 1he CourL agreed wlLh Lhe lrench courLs [usLlflcaLlon for
Lhe convlcLlon LhaL lL was necessary ln a democraLlc
socleLy of proLecLlng Lhe rlghL and repuLaLlon of oLhers and
Lo malnLaln Lhe auLhorlLy and lmparLlallLy of Lhe [udlclary
and LhaL Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe publlc ln recelvlng such
lnformaLlon was noL enough Lo overrlde Lhose
conslderaLlons
W Powever ln Lhls case lL was Lhe smallesL posslble ma[orlLy
[udgmenL and Lhe dlssenLlng [udges dld noL Lhlnk LhaL Lhe
breach of presumpLlon of lnnocence or Lhe lmpacL on Lhe
lmparLlallLy of Lhe [udlclary was enough Lo allow Lhe
convlcLlon Lo sLand and Look a slmllar vlew Lo LhaL ln 1he
Sunday 1lmes case
Comparat|ve Ana|ys|s w|th the US
W news medla are ordlnarlly free Lo publlsh
lnformaLlon lawfully obLalned
W Peavy presumpLlon agalnsL Lhe valldlLy of prlor
resLralnLs
rlor resLralnLs are Lhe mosL serlous and Lhe leasL
Lolerable lnfrlngemenL on llrsL AmendmenL rlghLs"
SusLalned only where acLlvlLy poses clear and presenL
danger or serlous and lmmlnenL LhreaL Lo compeLlng
governmenLal lnLeresL le assurlng accused a falr Lrlal
nebraska ress AssoclaLlon v SLuarL
W 1
sL
AmendmenL rlghL Lo free press v defendanL's 6
Lh
AmendmenL rlghL Lo falr Lrlal
W Supreme CourL sLruck down order prohlblLlng medla
from publlshlng lnformaLlon abouL defendanL accused
of murderlng famlly
W 1here ls a heavy burden on Lhe parLy seeklng Lo resLraln
Lhe press
W 1he CourL looked aL
1)Lhe naLure and exLenL of Lhe preLrlal news coverage
2) wheLher oLher less resLrlcLlve measures would have
allevlaLed Lhe effecLs of preLrlal publlclLy
3) Lhe effecLlveness of an ln[uncLlon ln prevenLlng Lhe
LhreaLened danger