This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/06/gq-article-phone-hacking-trial-contempt-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
GQ article on phone-hacking trial was in contempt of court, judges told GQ article on phone-hacking trial was in contempt of court, judges told
(about 4 hours later)
GQ magazine could face a fine for possible contempt of court in its coverage of the News of the World phone-hacking trial last year.GQ magazine could face a fine for possible contempt of court in its coverage of the News of the World phone-hacking trial last year.
The attorney general has told the lord chief justice that he believes an article by the US journalist Michael Wolff published last April created a substantial risk that the trial of Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and others “would be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.The attorney general has told the lord chief justice that he believes an article by the US journalist Michael Wolff published last April created a substantial risk that the trial of Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and others “would be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.
Andrew Caldecott QC, representing the attorney general, said the jury could have got the impression from the article that the newspaper’s owner Rupert Murdoch or his senior staff had either directed or known about phone hacking and had a “hidden agenda” at the trial. Andrew Caldecott QC, representing the attorney general, said the jury could have got the impression from the article that the newspaper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, or his senior staff had either directed or known about phone hacking and had a “hidden agenda” at the trial.
The article, titled “The court without a king”, appeared five months into the trial.The article, titled “The court without a king”, appeared five months into the trial.
Caldecott said at a high court hearing: “The thrust of the piece was that Mr Murdoch, proprietor of News International, was, or probably was, implicated in voicemail interception and that he should have been prosecuted and in his absence the trial had an air of unreality about it.”Caldecott said at a high court hearing: “The thrust of the piece was that Mr Murdoch, proprietor of News International, was, or probably was, implicated in voicemail interception and that he should have been prosecuted and in his absence the trial had an air of unreality about it.”
The prosecution in the trial had been careful not to make such suggestions, Caldecott said. The article also suggested that the reason the defence did not wish to rely on Murdoch’s alleged involvement was that he was paying the defence costs.The prosecution in the trial had been careful not to make such suggestions, Caldecott said. The article also suggested that the reason the defence did not wish to rely on Murdoch’s alleged involvement was that he was paying the defence costs.
There was a clear implication that the defence had a “hidden agenda” of protecting Murdoch’s interests and to conceal his involvement, said Caldecott.There was a clear implication that the defence had a “hidden agenda” of protecting Murdoch’s interests and to conceal his involvement, said Caldecott.
The article referred to Brooks having received a £10.8m settlement from Murdoch. Caldecott said members of the jury had not been told about defence funding or the alleged settlement and they were irrelevant to the trial. But if jurors had read the article it would have “suggested persuasively” to them that they were being presented “with a misleading picture at trial”.The article referred to Brooks having received a £10.8m settlement from Murdoch. Caldecott said members of the jury had not been told about defence funding or the alleged settlement and they were irrelevant to the trial. But if jurors had read the article it would have “suggested persuasively” to them that they were being presented “with a misleading picture at trial”.
Adrienne Page QC, for GQ’s publishers Condé Nast, argued that the article had not created a substantial risk of serious prejudice. It was “a highly subjective, personal and impressionistic sketch based upon the experience of visiting the trial courtroom,” she said. It combined “commentary, opinion, speculation and whimsy” and “toys with possibilities, rather than makes assertions”.Adrienne Page QC, for GQ’s publishers Condé Nast, argued that the article had not created a substantial risk of serious prejudice. It was “a highly subjective, personal and impressionistic sketch based upon the experience of visiting the trial courtroom,” she said. It combined “commentary, opinion, speculation and whimsy” and “toys with possibilities, rather than makes assertions”.
It was difficult to state unequivocally what the author was trying to convey “beyond revealing his personal contempt for the Murdoch empire and his own history of those who have been engaged in its service”, Page said. It was difficult to state unequivocally what the author was trying to convey “beyond revealing his personal contempt for the Murdoch empire and his own history of those who have been engaged in its service,” Page said.
The trial judge referred the article to the attorney general when it appeared on the grounds that it was possibly in contempt of court. At the time the article enraged Brooks, who felt it was borne out of sexism. The trial judge referred the article to the attorney general when it appeared, on the grounds that it was possibly in contempt of court. At the time, the article enraged Brooks, who felt it was borne out of sexism.
The lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, sitting with Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, will rule shortly on whether the piece amounts to contempt. He observed during the hearing: “I fail to see how anyone could have written this article in the middle of a trial.”The lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, sitting with Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, will rule shortly on whether the piece amounts to contempt. He observed during the hearing: “I fail to see how anyone could have written this article in the middle of a trial.”
If the judges find that the article was in contempt of court, they will then have to decide what penalty should be imposed.If the judges find that the article was in contempt of court, they will then have to decide what penalty should be imposed.