Re MGN Ltd and others [2011] EWCA Crim 100, [2011] All ER (D) 26 (Apr)
It was settled law that a systematic approach had to be taken to applications to restrict media coverage. The first question was whether the reporting would give rise to a not insubstantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. The second question was whether an order under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 would eliminate that risk. If not there would be no necessity to impose such a ban.
If, on the other hand, an order would achieve the objective, the court still had to consider whether the risk could satisfactorily be overcome by less restrictive measures. Third, even if there was no other way of eliminating the perceived risk of prejudice, it still did not follow necessarily that an order had to be made. That required a value judgment.
The use of s 4(2) of the Act for the purposes of alleviating the difficulties of giving evidence, even if evidence had to be given in more than one trial was rarely appropriate. The protection
