温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/ex-parte-news-group-newspapers-ltd
点击访问原文链接

Ex parte News Group Newspapers Ltd - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Ex parte News Group Newspapers Ltd - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Ex parte News Group Newspapers Ltd Reference: [2002] EMLR 160

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Judge: Lord Bingham CJ, Bracewell & Keene JJ

Date of judgment: 26 Apr 1999 Summary: Reporting Restrictions - s.4(2) Contempt of Court Act - Whether substantial risk of prejudice - Duty of Prosecuting Counsel when reporting restrictions are sought - Costs

Appearances:

Instructing Solicitors: Farrer & Co for News Group Newspapers Ltd

Facts John Alford, the former London’s Burning television star had been caught by the News of the World selling drugs to a reporter posing as a Middle Eastern sheikh. As a result, the Defendant was arrested and charged with supplying drugs. At an earlier hearing in the criminal trial, the Defendant dismissed his legal team and changed his guilty plea to not guilty. No reporting restrictions were in place and the hearing attracted widespread publicity. As a result the trial venue was moved and the trial delayed. At the subsequent trial, the Judge made extensive reporting restrictions which prevented any reporting of the trial because he felt that the jurors would be reminded of the aborted hearing if they read about the present hearing in the newspapers. News Group Newspapers appealed.

Issue (1) Whether the terms of the reporting restrictions could be justified; (2) What duties were owed by the Prosecution when applications for reporting restrictions were made; (3) In what circumstances would it be right to make an order for costs in favour of the media applicant.

Held Allowing the Appeal: (1) The reporting restrictions could not be justified and would be discharged; (2) the Crown has an important responsibility for maintaining the integrity of proceedings and it is desirable for Prosecuting Counsel to give assistance to the Court on the proper principles to be applied in reporting restriction cases; (3) Costs orders are discretionary. Where the Crown has been partisan and has supported an order for reporting restrictions which is subsequently set aside, then it is at risk of being made to pay a media applicant’s costs in having the order set aside.

Comment The Court of Appeal observed: “Counsel has drawn our attention to what we accept is a serious problem in some parts of the country. The problem is that orders restricting publication are made in situations when they should not be made. The problem is exacerbated in the ordinary run of cases where the story itself, although something that a local newspaper would wish to publish, is not of the highest public interest such as to justiy a newspaper expending large sums of money in seeking to have the order rectified. This appeal is in our judgment of value if it draws attention to that problem and urges the necessity of very serious consideration being given before an order is made under s.4(2) of the Act”.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* CommentsThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录