Quote:

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA) was enacted following a decision of ECHR that English contempt law contravened Article 10 of the Convention. It was intended to give greater protection to freedom of speech. [!!!!] The CCA introduces a strict liability rule. The strict liability rule indicates that conduct tending to interfere with the course of justice - particularly legal proceedings - may be treated as a contempt of court regardless of whether there was any intent to so interfere.

The strict liability rule applies only to publications. These are defined so as to include any speech, writing, broadcast or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

Two important limitations on the impact of the strict liability rule are:

- It applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

- It applies to a publication only if the proceedings are active. [...]

In 2002 the Sunday Mirror was found guilty of contempt in relation to its publication of an article during the 2001 trial of the Leeds United footballers Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate. The article, released while the jury were deliberating, strongly suggested that the assault with which the two men were charged had been racially motivated, despite the judge stressing in his summing-up that the prosecution were not alleging a racist motive. It was found by the court that the article created an atmosphere in which justice could not be done, and a re-trial had to be ordered. Despite there being no suggestion that the newspaper had intended to prejudice the trial, the High Court found it guilty of contempt under the strict liability rule. [...]