Law on Contempt (Hansard, 24 November 1980)

§ 47. Mr. Meacher
asked the Attorney-General what proposals he has for reforming the law on contempt.

§ The Attorney-General
As indicated in the Gracious Speech, the Government intend to introduce a Bill in the other place later this week.

§ Mr. Meacher
If the Government are to introduce a Bill in this Session on the law of contempt, why are they showing such indecent haste in trying to modify the law by pursuing the case against Miss Harriet Harman?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman might know that that case is sub judice. We do not wish to influence the decision of the court.

§ Mr. Meacher
I do not wish to interfere in the decision of the court. However, it is right to question—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We never have questions on a case that is before the courts.

§ Mr. Christopher Price
Will the Attorney-General at least confirm that it is the present practice, and will be the practice in any law that is enacted, that he has to approve a proposal by any Department in Whitehall to bring cases of contempt?

§ The Attorney-General
That is not the practice. When one has the form of contempt that involves one party to litigation saying that the other party has broken the rules, that is a matter for those parties. I am involved when it is a case of contempt possibly interfering with the administration of justice.

§ Mr. Archer
Does the Attorney-General agree that the time has come to consider as a package the restrictions and privileges affecting the media? Should not decisions on these matters be taken by Parliament on the merits, rather than leaving them to be decided piecemeal by the courts?

§ The Attorney-General
There is always the difficulty of balancing two conflicting interests: the right of the public to be informed and, equally, the right of a party to what is usually a criminal action to a fair and unprejudiced trial. I think that the system that we have is probably the best way of achieving that balance.