Contempt of courtInjunction restraining newspaper from publishing information - third party magazine publishing information covered by injunction - no contempt absent knowledge that purpose of injunction would be defeatedAttorney-General v Punch Ltd and another: CA (Master of the Rolls Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lords Justice Simon Brown and Longmore): 23 March 2001The Attorney-General obtained interlocutory injunctions against S, a former MI5 officer, and a newspaper restraining the publication of information on the security service pending the trial of a breach of confidence action.The injunction restrained the newspaper from publishing information obtained from S 'in the course of or as a result of his employment in and position as a member of the security service, whether in relation to the work of, or in support of, security or intelligence services or otherwise'.A proviso permitted publication of information previously disclosed in a specific newspaper article and that to which the Attorney-General consented in writing.

The editor and publishers of a magazine, knowing the terms of the injunctions and without the Attorney-General's consent, published an article by S which included information restrained by the injunctions but which the editor considered was not harmful to the national interest.The Attorney-General brought common law contempt proceedings against the editor, alleging that the publication interfered with the administration of justice.

The judge found the contempt proved.

The editor appealed.David Price, solicitor-advocate (instructed by Henry Hepworth) for the editor.

Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Attorney-General.Held, allowing the appeal, that third parties were not to be held liable for common law contempt merely by publishing material the subject of an interim injunction but only where it was demonstrated that their disclosure defeated, in whole or in part, the court's purpose in granting the injunction and that they appreciated that it would do so; that the purpose in granting the interim injunctions was to prevent the disclosure of previously unpublished material which arguably posed a risk of damaging the national interest; that the actus reus of contempt was established in that the editor had published previously unpublished material which arguably posed a risk of harming the national interest; but that (Lord Justice Simon Brown dissenting), the evidence did not establish that the editor must have appreciated that those matters had not been published before or that publication might arguably be a threat to national security, so the requisite mens rea was not proved.