The judge granted the injunction on the basis that the films, which he hadn’t seen, echoed arguments put before the trial’s jury.

The BBC and the Guardian challenged the ruling as the films neither mentioned the case or the Birmingham riots.

The BBC and Guardian challenged the ruling on the basis that, under the Contempt of Court Act ‘discussion in good faith of public affairs’ should not be regarded as contempt of court if the risk of prejudicing a case is merely incidental.

Rejecting those arguments, the judge suggested that ‘social contact’ between the jurors and people watching the documentary could risk creating bias.

He also banned the reporting of his decision.

“These programmes were potentially extremely prejudicial,” Flaux said.

“In my very clear judgment the continuation of the order – which, it has rightly been pointed out, is an injunction – that I made on Monday is the only necessary and proportionate remedy.”

He even went on so far as to describe the BBC as “irresponsible” for attempting to overturn the ruling.

Censorship groups have condemned the decision and legal experts have called into the question the judge’s response to the BBC’s appeal, calling it a “textbook example of incidental risk”.

The eight men were acquitted of the murder today.

blog comments powered by Disqus