Daily Record fined £80,000 for contempt

The Daily Record newspaper has been fined £80,000 for contempt of court in two newspaper reports, a newly published opinion of the High Court of Justiciary reveals.

The fine was imposed in October 2017, but details of the case have only now been released, no doubt so as not to risk further prejudice to the proceedings concerned.

In the first report, a person arrested and committed for trial on firearms and other charges connected with serious organised crime was named and had photographs of him published in a "sensational" article that associated him with drug trafficking and dealing and with a number of shootings of members of organised crime, using phrases such as "gang boss", "cocaine kingpin" and "cocaine baron". It contained details of allegations against him that might form part of the evidence at trial, and referred to the recovery of a "fearsome arsenal" and "horrific array" of weapons and money. In addition, it revealed detailed information about his criminal convictions, and referred to other live proceedings, suggesting that he had gone into hiding and describing him as "one of Scotland’s most wanted men".

The second article named an accused arrestred on charges of attempted abduction while subject to a sexual offences prevention order. It showed him being pinned to the ground and in handcuffs, also giving detail of allegations that might form part of the evidence at trial. There was a quote suggesting his offending and the article implied his guilt of the offences with which he was charged.

Contempt was admitted before the court. It was said that in the first case, a solicitor had "legalled" the article but was said to have been seriously unwell and her doctor reported that she should not have been at work. She was heavily medicated and "incapable of rational thought let alone advising clients on legal matters". In the second case the photographs were printed against advice; the editor had chosen to run the risk of contempt.

Lady Dorrian, Lord Justice Clerk, who sat with Lord Menzies and Lord Turnbull, observed in delivering the opinion of the court: "Counsel, in his submission, recognised that the nature of the articles, at least in the [first]case, might be considered so glaringly flagrant that any editor might have questioned the advice given. There is some force in that concession: in [that case] the terms of the article were blatant contempt."

She added: "In the [second case], the publication of the photograph is a particularly serious matter. However, it is also the case that the article set out details of facts which might be expected to be the subject of evidence at trial, including statements made by potential witnesses."

In relation to the penalty Lady Dorrian concluded: "We recognise that what is sometimes referred to as the 'fade factor', arising from the gap in time between publication and trial, is an element which must be borne in mind; as is the fact that the trial judge will be able to give such directions as he sees fit. It is also relevant that the respondent accepted guilt and tendered an apology. It must be noted however that these came at a relatively late stage in the proceedings, and following answers and notes of argument in which it was maintained that the statutory test had not been met. Of course, the original petitions also contained other allegations of contempt and other respondents, but the fact remains that the admissions were made late in the day, and the apology even later."

The court imposed a cumulo fine of £80,000.

Click here to view the opinion of the court.