Attorney General v (1) Neil Harkins and (2) Dean Liddle [2013] EWHC 1455 (Admin)
- Summary
- Citing
- Cited By
Attorney General v Harkins and Liddle [2013] EWHC 1455 (Admin) concerned contempt proceedings brought before the Divisional Court (the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir John Thomas, and Tugendhat J) arising from breaches of an injunction protecting the identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. Each respondent was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for fifteen months.
In 2001, following the release on licence of Venables and Thompson (convicted in 1993 aged eleven of the murder of two-year-old James Bulger), Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P granted a worldwide injunction prohibiting publication of any depiction, image, photograph, film or voice recording made or taken on or after 18 February 1993 which purported to be of either man, or any description which purported to be of their physical appearance, voices or accents. The injunction was made to prevent the real possibility of serious physical harm or death from vengeful members of the public and to protect not only Venables and Thompson but also innocent persons who might be mistakenly identified.
On or about 14 February 2013, the twentieth anniversary of James Bulger’s murder, Mr Neil Harkins posted on his Facebook page photographs purporting to identify Venables and Thompson, one showing images from the early 1990s and another from the late 2000s. He stated that the photograph was not allowed to be shown and questioned why Venables had been released and protected. He had one-hundred-and-forty-one Facebook friends, but the post resulted in over 20,000 sharings. Mr Dean Liddle posted photographs purporting to identify Venables and Thompson as adults on his Twitter account at about 1.42 a.m. on 14 February 2013. The photographs were accessible to the general public and he had nine-hundred-and-fifteen followers. He removed the photographs at about 2.25 to 2.27 a.m., apparently after someone pointed out that the images were not those of Venables. He later tweeted that he knew about the injunction but posted anyway, and that a fine would be “worth it” if it meant the men who murdered a child would be known publicly.
The Attorney General was notified swiftly and the Treasury Solicitor wrote to each respondent on 28 February 2013 (Harkins) and 5 March 2013 (Liddle) notifying them that the publication was prohibited and asking for removal. Mr Harkins immediately removed the photograph on 1 March and de-activated his account. He wrote on 5 March explaining that he had believed the images were not subject to legal constraints because they were widely accessible on the internet and he thought the restrictions applied only to media publications. Mr Liddle initially responded defiantly on Twitter, saying he wanted to go to court, but telephoned the Treasury Solicitor on 6 March and apologised profusely. He acknowledged he had been aware of the injunction but had not fully understood its implications or seriousness.
Both respondents admitted contempt of court. The court held that the admissions were properly made. The maximum sentence for contempt was two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. The court rejected the imposition of a fine as wholly inappropriate given the gravity of the offending. The court found there were no comparable authorities and therefore assessed the seriousness without precedent.
The court identified three aggravating features. First, the potential consequences not only to Venables and Thompson but also to persons who might be mistakenly identified and subject to vigilante attack resulting in serious injury or worse. Second, both respondents knew of the prohibition contained in the injunction, though they may not have known the full extent of the consequences. Third, and the court regarded this as aggravating rather than mitigating, both became part of a determined internet campaign on the twentieth anniversary of James Bulger’s death. They freely joined that campaign and the fact that others were also doing it was no excuse.
The mitigating features were the removal of the offending pictures (particularly swiftly in Mr Liddle’s case), the apologies, and the way the proceedings had been conducted with admissions promptly and fulsomely made. The court also took into account strong personal mitigation, particularly in the case of Mr Liddle, including his charitable work, the effect custody would have on his young deaf son, injuries he had sustained when going to the aid of another person, and the good character of each respondent.
The court emphasised the purposes of the injunction and the risks faced by numerous people. It stressed the importance of upholding the rule of law: the injunction was clear and no one should contemplate taking the law into their own hands by encouraging punishment of an offender by others. Punishment was imposed by a court alone and vigilantism had no place in a civilised society. The court had particular regard to deterring such conduct. The court also emphasised the very serious nature of publication on social media or the internet, noting the widespread reach demonstrated in this case. The social media could reach very many people and the conduct of anyone who published such information had that very serious consequence.
The court considered that the appropriate sentence was one of nine months’ imprisonment for each respondent. The court stated that the serious consequences would ordinarily have led to a significantly higher sentence, but it took into account the very strong personal mitigation. The court then considered whether to suspend the sentences. It accepted that neither respondent appreciated the very serious nature of their conduct and the potential for extensive spreading across the internet. The court regarded as the strongest mitigating factor the action both took in co-operating with the Attorney General, apologising and enabling the court to deal with the matter in the shortest time possible. The court also considered the strong personal mitigation, particularly for Mr Liddle including reference to his charitable work, the effect custody would have on his young deaf son, and injuries he had sustained when going to the aid of another which would make custody more difficult. The court took into account the effect on family and the good character of each.
Weighing those matters together, the court took what it described as the exceptional course of suspending the nine-month terms of imprisonment for each respondent for a period of fifteen months. The court concluded by warning that for the future, if there was a similar publication on the internet or through social media after the date of the judgment, there would be little prospect of such a person escaping a substantial custodial sentence without any prospect of suspension. The court expressed the hope that the Attorney General would take steps to ensure that the injunction was published in a prominent position so that no one could claim ignorance of the serious consequences.
In short, both respondents received nine months’ imprisonment suspended for fifteen months for contempt of court in breaching an injunction protecting the identities of Venables and Thompson, with the court signalling that future breaches would attract immediate custody.
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson), Unreported 1 August 2018
Yaxley-Lennon [2018] EWCA Crim 1856
Venables & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 241 (QB); Richard McKeag and Natalie Barker
Her Majesty’s Solicitor General v Anthony John Wixted
Her Majesty’s Solicitor General v O’Neill [2020] EWHC 498 (Admin)
Re Rajiv Menon KC (Crown Court at Woolwich, 22 June 2026)