View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Archive content
October 7, 2004updated 22 Nov 2022 12:12pm

Ban on murder trial reports ‘a mistake’

By Press Gazette

Pike: “no strong risk of prejudice”

A blanket order banning reporting of the trial of a man charged with murdering a policeman has been lifted after media organisations joined forces to oppose it.

Mr Justice Henriques made the order in April covering the trial of Nathan Coleman (aka David Bieber) who was arrested on 31 December and charged with the murder of a policeman. PC Ian Broadhurst was shot dead in Leeds on Boxing Day by a man sitting in the back of his police car who had been arrested on suspicion of car theft.

It is believed that Judge Henriques made the order due to concerns about the reporting of Coleman’s previous activities after his initial arrest.

It was made under Section Four of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and prevented publication of any details of Coleman’s trial.

Julian Pike, from Farrer & Co, travelled to Newcastle Crown Court on Monday to contest the order on behalf of News International, MGN, Express Newspapers, Associated Newspapers, ITN, The Guardian and The Independent newspapers.

Content from our partners
Free journalism awards for journalists under 30: Deadline today
MHP Group's 30 To Watch awards for young journalists open for entries
How PA Media is helping newspapers make the digital transition

He said: “When I spoke to the judge’s clerk on Friday morning I was told that the intention was the order would remain in place for the duration of the trial.

“When we got to the court on Monday morning, we were told it had all been a mistake and there was an administrative error. It is unfortunate that we weren’t told that earlier on.

“I would have argued that the Section Four order was wrong because there was no substantial risk of prejudice in reporting what had happened the day before in court.

There are delaying powers where there might be prejudice to a subsequent trial or trials – but this did not appear to be the case here.”

The Queen’s Bench Division Court ruled in 1992 than any court had discretionary powers to hear representations from the press when it was considering continuing a Section Four order.

A separate order banning the publication of Coleman’s photograph, or making reference to his hair colour, will remain in place until witnesses who are likely to make statements regarding the defendant’s identity have done so. The trial is due to start on 16 November.

By Dominic Ponsford

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network