Papers fined over online pictures of defendant
In March, the publishers of the Daily Mail and The Sun became the first website owners in Britain to be found guilty of contempt “online” when they were found to have created a “substantial risk” of prejudicing the trial of Ryan Ward.
Both had accidentally published uncropped or insufficiently cropped photos after the start of the September 2009 Sheffield Crown Court trial of Ward, who was later convicted of murdering mechanic Craig Wass by hitting him with a brick.
Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC took action on the basis that the papers had breached the liability rule of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act, which says that publishing an article or picture which could prejudice a trial may be contempt, even though there is no actual “intent” to interfere with the course of justice.
Associated Newspapers and News Group Newspapers argued there was no strict liability breach, and the risk of prejudice was “insubstantial”.
But, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Owen ruled there had been contempt and that, whilst no juror saw the offending image, the risk was created by an avoidable mistake.
“The criminal courts have been troubled by the dangers to the integrity and fairness of a criminal trial, where juries can obtain such easy access to the internet and to other forms of instant communication.
“This case demonstrates the need to recognise that instant news requires instant and effective protection for the integrity of a criminal trial,” they warned.
They said that £15,000 would be an “appropriate penalty” for each defendant and they should pay the Attorney General’s costs of £28,117.
Mail Online now requires their staff to have articles regarding crime and the courts, including photos and captions, checked by a lawyer before publication and NGN now ensures that staff working on the online edition of The Sun use pictures as they appear in the newspaper.




