Note from Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney
General
Further to the Attorney General's evidence to
the Procedure Committee on 19 January 2005, the Attorney General
agreed to provide further information with regard to three issues.
1. At Question 55 of the transcript of evidence
the Chairman requested information with regard to any cases prejudiced
by comments made in the House of Commons.
2. Research has revealed a number of cases
worthy of note:
3. Attorney General v Leveller [1979]—The
original criminal proceedings related to committal proceedings
for an Official Secrets Act offence. A witness in the proceedings
was allowed to be referred to in court as "Colonel B".
As a result of evidence given in the proceedings his identity
was established and was published in the Leveller Magazine
and others. Contempt of Court proceedings were brought against
the Leveller Magazine. During the currency of the contempt
proceedings "Colonel B" was named in Parliamentary Question
Time. The Divisional Court found the magazine guilty of contempt.
However, the House of Lords overturned this. The Members' actions
were referred to the Select Committee on Privileges who ruled
that in naming "Colonel B" they had breached the sub
judice convention.
4. Attorney General v Sunday Times Newspaper
[1973]—This case related to an action being taken against
the drugs company, Distillers, by parents whose children had been
affected by the thalidomide drug. As negotiations were continuing
in an attempt to settle the claims no steps had been taken to
bring the matter to trial. The Sunday Times newspaper published
an article criticising Distillers, the drug company. The Attorney
of the day was invited to issue contempt proceedings. The Sunday
Times were asked for their observations and in replying also
submitted a further article which they proposed to publish.
5. The Attorney successfully obtained an
injunction against the Sunday Times in respect of the proposed
article. Criticisms were then made of Distillers in a Parliamentary
debate, not dissimilar to the criticisms made in the Sunday
Times newspaper. This debate was widely reported. An appeal
to the Court of Appeal to discharge the contempt injunction was
successful—one of the grounds upon which the injunction
was discharged was the Parliamentary debate and the reporting
of that debate in the media. However, the injunction was later
restored by the House of Lords. This led in turn to an appeal
to the ECHR and to the passing of the Contempt of Court Act.
6. The case of R v Z [1997] related
to the breach of an anonymity order affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
A Member of Parliament named the child in the House. The Member
would have been afforded the protection of Article 9 of the Bill
of Rights. It appears that the order had not been publicised and
an application was then made by the Official Solicitors to publicise
the terms of the order.
7. At Question 63 and 64 of the transcript
a question was raised as to whether the Ministerial Code contained
any guidance with regard to comments made by Ministers outside
Parliament.
8. The Attorney General could not recall
any such reference but offered to check. Checking has revealed
that there is no reference or guidance in the Ministerial Code
as such with regard to statements made by Ministers outside of
Parliament in this context, ie relating to pending court proceedings.
It is worth noting however, that there is a general reference
to "upholding the administration of justice" at the
beginning of the Ministers of the Crown section of the Code.
9. At Question 82 of the transcript the
Attorney General agreed to provide a note detailing when proceedings
are active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act.
10. Proceedings are active for the purposes
of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 as set out in Schedule 1 to
the Contempt of Court Act, which is attached for your information
[not printed].
11. More specifically, the case of Peacock
& Others v London Weekend Television [1995] held that
proceedings are active for the purposes of contempt of court in
a Coroner's Court at the moment the inquest is opened. A copy
of the transcript of the judgment is also attached for your information
[not printed].
March 2005
| 
