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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article