Sunday Mirror to face contempt action over Leeds case
( 2001-05-16 10:47 ) (7 )

Britain's attorney general on Tuesday recommended that the Sunday Mirror newspaper face court action on contempt of court charges after an interview it carried led to the collapse of a high-profile trial last month.

The office of the attorney general, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in a statement that "he intends to apply to the Divisional Court for permission to bring proceedings against the company for contempt of court".

The trial of two Leeds United footballers accused of seriously assaulting an Asian student collapsed on April 9 when Judge David Poole ruled an interview in the Sunday Mirror carried a substantial risk of prejudice.

Legal costs were estimated at eight million pounds (US$11 million) at that stage.

Sarfraz Najeib suffered serious injuries including a broken leg and fractured cheekbone in the alleged attack. Footballers Jonathan Woodgate, Lee Bowyer and two of Woodgate's friends all denied causing grievous bodily harm with intent and affray.

After the interview appeared in the newspaper, Poole said he had no choice but to discharge the jury and set a new trial date for October 8.

Poole referred the newspaper to the attorney general and said the Sunday Mirror might also have to pay legal costs.

The newspaper apologised for the effects of the article and editor Colin Myler resigned. Myler will not face contampt charges, the attorney general's office said.

"The decision to publish was a serious error of judgment. Colin Myler has resigned as editor of the Sunday Mirror and has left the company," Mirror Group Newspapers said last month.

An official at the Attorney General's office said if found guilty, the newspaper group could face an unlimited fine.

But a media lawyer said contempt of court was normally punishable by fines of 50,000 to 100,000 pounds and that the collapse of a trial could also lead to claims for legal compensation from the parties involved.

But he said such claims were not common and would be more difficult to pursue.

An MGN spokesman said the company was pleased that the Attorney General was not going to proceed against it for deliberate or reckless common law contempt.

He said MGN, which owns 254 publications, had not been fined for contempt of court since the 1940s.