Contempt of Court Act 1981

요약

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 reformed and codified the law of contempt of court, implementing recommendations of the Phillimore Committee Report (1974). Its centrepiece is the strict liability rule in s.2: a publication that creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in particular proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced is contempt regardless of the publisher's intent, provided the proceedings are active. This replaced the older common law which required proof of intent in most cases. The Act established a framework balancing two competing interests: the right to a fair trial (protected by the strict liability rule) and freedom of expression (protected by defences for fair reporting, public affairs discussion, and innocent publication). The Act also contains crucial protections for journalistic sources (s.10), making it unlawful for courts to compel disclosure of a journalist's sources except where necessary in the interests of justice, national security, or the prevention of disorder or crime. Injunctions ('postponement orders' under s.4(2)) can restrict contemporaneous reporting of court proceedings where necessary.

핵심 포인트

• Strict liability rule (s.2) — a publication creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings is contempt regardless of intent, provided a substantial risk of serious prejudice is created
• Proceedings must be 'active' as defined by Schedule 1 — criminal proceedings become active on arrest without warrant, warrant, summons, or oral charge; civil proceedings on setting down for trial
• Defence of innocent publication (s.3) — no contempt if the publisher does not know and has no reason to suspect proceedings are active
• Fair and accurate contemporaneous reporting of public proceedings (s.4(1)) — not contempt; court may postpone reports under s.4(2) if necessary
• Discussion of public affairs defence (s.5) — not contempt if the publication is made as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs and the risk of impediment is merely incidental
• Journalistic sources protection (s.10) — no court may require disclosure of a source unless satisfied it is necessary in the interests of justice, national security, or prevention of disorder or crime
• Jury deliberations absolutely protected — it is contempt to obtain, disclose, or solicit information about jury deliberations (s.8)
• Postponement orders (s.4(2)) — court may order postponement of contemporaneous reports where necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice

편과 조

개정 이력