CONTEMPT LAWS

Question 1

COMMON LAW CONTEMPT

Answer 1

Offence to publish material which creates a substantial risk of prejudice to legal proceedings which are imminent or pending

If it can be proved there was intent to create such a risk

Question 2

STRICT LIABILITY RULE

Answer 2

Section 1 of Contempt of Court Act 1981

Contempt to publish any material which creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to active proceedings

Court does not have to prove intent

Question 3

SECTION 41 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1925

Answer 3

Contempt to photograph, take stills or video or make sketches of, or publish:

Anyone in court or within its ‘precincts’

Anyone entering or leaving court or its ‘precincts’

Publishing any such picture obtained, including sketches etc.

Question 4

WHAT CAN CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK?

Answer 4

Reference to any previous convinctions which suspect or defendant may have

Anything suggesting he or she is dishonest

Anything that appears to link the accused directly to the crime

Any other suggestion that the accused is guilty

Question 5

JURIES ACT 1974

Answer 5

It is contempt to breach confidentiality of a jury’s deliberations, whether the jury is in a Crown court, inquest or civil case

They decide their verdicts after secret discussions which helps them to be frank without fear of public backlash or retribution from a vengeful defendant

Section 20D of the Juries Act 1974 applies to Crown court, the High Court and county courts makes it contempt to intentionally obtain, solicit or disclose:
◦ Statements made
◦ Opinions expressed
◦ Votes cast

By jurors during their deliberations
◦ Jurors will also breach this law if they disclose such detail

• The ban can be still be breached if what was published does not identify an individual juror or even a particular trial
• Penalty for a breach is up to two years in jail and/or unlimited fine
• After a trial, the media can publish a juror’s general impressions of his/her experience of jury service as long as they volunteer And do not discuss anything banned under section 20D

Investigations into miscarriages of justice may prompt jurors to speak out weeks or months after a conviction

Or new evidence might mean they contact journalists to say they are no longer sure of an accused’s guilt

The best way forward in these circumstances is to seek legal advice