Times urges Attorney General to withdraw Russell Brand warning advisory

A column by Times senior writer Sean O’Neill argued that the warning from Victoria Prentis ‘has no basis in law’.
Allegations made against Russell Brand have been reported in the media (James Manning/PA)
PA Wire
Pa25 September 2023
The Weekender

Sign up to our free weekly newsletter for exclusive competitions, offers and theatre ticket deals

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

The Attorney General has been criticised for issuing a warning to the media about its reporting of the allegations made against Russell Brand.

The note from Victoria Prentis said she “wishes to amplify the importance of not publishing any material where there is a risk that it could prejudice any potential criminal investigation or prosecutions.

Publishing this material could amount to contempt of court.”

It warned editors to ensure they “are in a position to fully comply with the obligations to which they are subject under the common law and Contempt of Court Act 1981”.

Strict liability contempt under the Act applies to legal proceedings that are “active” at the time of the publication, which is generally accepted to be if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant.

Neither has happened in Brand’s case.

Is the Government telling reporters to stop interviewing women who have courageously come forward, stop pursuing legitimate and important public interest journalism?

Sean O'Neill in The Times

The Times newspaper, which along with its Sunday sister paper and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme broke the story, called on Ms Prentis to withdraw the media advisory “immediately”.

In an opinion column, Times senior writer Sean O’Neill wrote: “Anyone with even the sketchiest knowledge of how the media works surely knows that every single word of reporting on Brand has been rigorously scrutinised before publication.”

He added: “The Attorney General is either poorly informed about the law of contempt or has taken it upon herself to issue a thinly veiled threat intended to have a chilling effect on reporting of the Brand allegations.

“The work of journalists on The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches brought these allegations (which Brand denies) to light and forced the police to open an inquiry.

“Is the Government telling reporters to stop interviewing women who have courageously come forward, stop pursuing legitimate and important public interest journalism?

“Meanwhile, Brand is free to pontificate on social media channels. Prentis’s intervention is a shocking overreach. It is not her job to tell reporters to stop reporting on issues where there is merely the “potential” for criminal proceedings.

“It is the job of reporters to uncover misconduct and wrongdoing, to gather evidence that could lead to criminal trials.”

The column concluded: “The Attorney General’s censorious warning has no basis in law. She should withdraw it immediately.”

The Attorney General’s Office has been contacted for comment.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Sign up you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy notice .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in