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/re-mgn-ltd-ors
点击访问原文链接

Re MGN Ltd - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Re MGN 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 Re MGN Ltd Reference: [2011] EWCA Crim 100

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Judge: Lord Chief Justice, Eady , Simon JJ

Date of judgment: 25 Jan 2011 Summary: Reporting restrictions - Criminal proceedings - Blanket ban on reporting trial - Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.4(2) - Effect of contemporaneous reporting on witnesses at trial

Appearances: Adam Wolanski KC (Applicant) 

Instructing Solicitors: Reynolds Porter Chamberlain for the Applicants

Facts MGN Limited and others applied for leave to appeal against an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 postponing all reporting of three consecutive murder trials concerning an alleged murder at Victoria Station. The order had been made (a) in order to protect young witnesses who may encounter hostility when they gave evidence; (b) because of the risk that witnesses in trials two and three would alter their evidence if their evidence from the first trial were reported.

Issue Whether a blanket postponement order was necessary

Held Granting leave, allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the trial judge for further consideration of what orders may be necessary:

(1) A blanket prohibition on reporting was not necessary. Such a ban would not alleviate the problems that may be faced by witnesses in this case.

(2) The use of section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in order to alleviate the problems of giving evidence, even if evidence was to be given at more than one trial, was rarely appropriate.

Comment A reminder by the Court of Appeal of the need for judges to examine closely whether an order under section 4(2) postponing reporting is necessary: if, as in this case, the risk to a fair trial arises from factors other than contemporaneous fair and accurate reporting, such an order is very unlikely to be appropriate.

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* EmailThis 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