§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Attorney-General (1) on what basis he concluded that the proposed publication of the memoir of a former employee of the royal household at Buckingham palace constituted a deliberate attempt to interfere with the administration of justice; and if he will make a statement; [15853]
(2) in what circumstances he is able to act on behalf of members of the public in order to restrain newspapers from publishing reports or articles written by or relating to their former employees; [15857]
(3) for what reasons he sought from the editor of The People an undertaking that the paper would not publish the memoir of a former employee of the Buckingham palace household; [15851]
(4) what special responsibilities he has in relation to representing (a) Her Majesty the Queen and (b) other members of the royal family in matters relating to their private lives. [15852]
§ The Attorney-GeneralAs Her Majesty's Attorney-General, I bring proceedings on behalf of Her Majesty in her private capacity to enforce her private law rights. This includes proceedings against employees or former employees of her household in respect of breach of confidence or breach of contract. I do not have the same function in respect of other members of the royal family or members of the public.
It is a contempt of court for a person who is not a party to proceedings to take steps which are intended to interfere with or impede the administration of justice by subverting the purpose of the proceedings. The contempt is criminal in nature. I can take proceedings for criminal contempt against that person. I take them not on behalf of the Government or the parties to the original proceedings but in my capacity as guardian of the public interest.
On 8 February it became apparent that The People intended to publish a story concerning a former employee of the royal household who was the subject of an injunction obtained from the High Court in 1983.
The next day, a letter was sent to the newspaper and its publisher enclosing a copy of the injunction and seeking an undertaking not to publish material of the kind referred to in it. Such publication would have been a criminal contempt of court.
166WHaving considered the response of the editor I concluded that, on the information that she had provided as to the scope of the proposed story, it was not clear that it contravened the terms of the injunction, and it would not be in the public interest to take criminal contempt proceedings against the editor or the publisher. The newspaper was so informed on 15 February.
§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions he has taken action to restrain(a) newspaper publishers and (b) other publishers from publishing details of the private lives of (i) members of the royal family and (ii) other individuals in the last three years. [15856]
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere is no record of any proceedings brought by me in the last three years for these purposes.