A #5000 fine imposed on George Outram and Company, publishers of the

Evening Times, was set aside by five appeal court Judges yesterday.

The Court of Criminal Appeal also set aside a fine of #500 imposed on

Mr George McKechnie, the newspaper's editor. The Solicitor General for

Scotland Alan Rodger, QC, told the court yesterday that the Crown did

not take the view that what had been published amounted to contempt of

court.

Mr Robert Henderson, QC, counsel for the newspaper and the editor, was

not asked to address the court on the issue of contempt.

Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk -- who heard the case with Lords

Cowie, Morison, Cullen, and Milligan -- said that, in view of the

Crown's position, the court would set aside the findings of contempt of

court and the consequent fines.

The fines were imposed by Sheriff James Spy at Paisley on February 28

this year following a report in the Evening Times headed: ''Sheriff

drops juror.''

The report stated that a sheriff had dismissed a juror after he

admitted to knowing ''by reputation'' one of two men on assault charges.

The defence argued that this was prejudicial.

The sheriff said he had allowed the trial to proceed only after being

entirely satisfied that the remaining 14 jurors were ignorant of the

reasons why one of their number had been discharged.

Sheriff Spy took the view that what had been published in the Evening

Times could not be said to be a fair and accurate report of legal

proceedings held in public, as the jury had not been present.

He was satisfied that the information published had created a

substantial risk that the course of justice in the case would be

seriously prejudiced and halted the case, leaving it open to the Crown

to raise fresh proceedings.

In their appeal against the contempt findings, the Evening Times and

Mr McKechnie argued that the newspaper was protected under the Contempt

of Court Act 1981 because it had fairly and accurately reported legal

proceedings which had taken place in public.

They also argued that what was published did not give rise to a real

risk of prejudice to a fair and impartial trial. Fairly read, the report

did not contain information capable of prejudicing the minds of

reasonably intelligent jurors.

Mr Rodger did not say yesterday why the Crown took the view that the

Evening Times had not committed contempt and the case still leaves

undecided the question of whether proceedings in the absence of a jury

can be said to be in open court.

The most likely outcome is that, in future, Judges and sheriffs will

make an order under the Contempt of Court Act postponing reporting of

proceedings outwith the presence of a jury until the end of the trial.