Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2)

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/248

Her Majesty's Attorney General (Appellant)

v.
The Observer Limited and others (Respondents)

JUDGMENT

Die Jovis 13° Octobris 1988

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
referred the Cause Her Majesty's Attorney General against The
Observer Limited and others, That the Committee had heard
Counsel on Tuesday the 14th, Wednesday the 15th, Thursday the
16th, Monday the 20th, Wednesday the 22nd and Thursday the
23rd days of June last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Her
Her Majesty's Attorney General, of the Royal Courts of
Justice, Strand, London, WC2, praying that the matter of the
Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order of
Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 10th day of February
1988, as amended on the 14th and 31st days of March 1988,
might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed, varied
or altered or that the Petitioner might have such other relief
in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament might seem meet; as upon the case of The Observer
Limited, Donald Trelford, David Leigh, Paul Lashmar, Guardian
Newspapers Limited, Peter Preston and Richard Norton Taylor,
lodged in answer to the said appeal; and due consideration had
this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of
Appeal of the 10th day of February 1988, as amended on the
14th and 31st days of March 1988, complained of in the said
Appeal be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed and that the said
Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this
House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant do pay
or cause to be paid to the said Respondents the Costs incurred
by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to
be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed
between the parties.

Cler: Parliamentor:

Judgment: 13.10.88

HOUSE OF LORDS

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL
(APPELLANT)

v.

THE OBSERVER LIMITED AND OTHERS
(RESPONDENTS)

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL
(ORIGINAL APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT)

v.

THE TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED AND ANOTHER
(ORIGINAL RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS)

(CONJOINED APPEALS)

Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Brightman
Lord Griffiths
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Lord Jauncey

of Tullichettle

LORD KEITH OF KINKEL
My Lords,

From 1955 to 1976 Peter Wright was employed in a senior
capacity by the counter-espionage branch of the British Security
Service known as M.I.5. In that capacity he acquired knowledge of
a great many matters of prime importance to the security of the
country. Following his retirement from the service he went to
live in Australia and later formed the intention of writing and
publishing a book of memoirs describing his experiences in the
service. He wrote the book in association with…