CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 12 juillet 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  Application No. 13585/88   THE OBSERVER Ltd and Others   and   GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS Ltd and Others   against   the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 12 July 1990)                           TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                Page   I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-12)                            1-2           A.   The application (paras. 2-4)                       1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 5-7)                      1-2           C.   The present Report (paras. 8-12)                   2   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 13-57)             3-16   III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 58-104)            17-27           A.   Points at issue (para. 58)                         17           B.   As regards Article 10 of the Convention          17-25             (paras. 59-91)               a)   Interference with freedom of expression        18                 (para. 61)               b)   Prescribed by law                            18-19                 (paras. 62-66)               c)   Legitimate aim                               19-20                 (paras. 67-69)               d)   Necessary in a democratic society            20-25                 (paras. 70-91)                   aa)   Necessity: the period 11 July 1986      21-24                      until 30 July 1987 (paras. 79-86)                        Opinion of MM. Frowein, Busuttil        21-23                      and Weitzel (paras. 79-81)                        Opinion of Mrs.   Thune, MM. Rozakis      23-24                      and Loucaides (paras. 82-85)                        Conclusion (para. 86)                     24                   bb)   Necessity: the period 30 July 1987      24-25                      until 13 October 1988 (paras. 87-91)                        Conclusion (para. 91)                     25           C.   As regards Article 13 of the Convention          25-26             (paras. 92-95)               Conclusion (para. 95)                              26           D.   As regards Article 14 of the Convention          26-27             (paras. 96-100)               Conclusion (para. 100)                             27           E.   Recapitulation (paras. 101-104)                    27   Concurring opinion of Sir Basil Hall in respect of the         28 period 30 July 1987 until 13 October 1988   Partly dissenting opinion of MM. Nørgaard, Jörundsson,         29 Schermers, Danelius and Sir Basil Hall   APPENDIX I       History of the proceedings                   30-31   APPENDIX II      Decision on the admissibility                32-49                 of the application     I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The application is brought by The Observer Ltd, Donald Trelford, David Leigh, Paul Lashmar, Guardian Newspapers Ltd, Peter Preston and Richard Norton-Taylor.   The Observer Ltd are the proprietors and publishers of the national Sunday newspaper the "Observer", published in the United Kingdom (hereafter abbreviated to UK).   Mr.   Trelford is the editor of the Observer and MM. Leigh and Lashmar are reporters employed on the Observer.   Guardian Newspapers Ltd are the proprietors and publishers of the UK national daily newspaper "The Guardian".   Mr.   Preston is the editor of The Guardian and Mr.   Norton-Taylor one if its reporters.   All these gentlemen are British citizens.   The applicants were represented before the Commission by Messrs.   Lovell White and Durrant, Solicitors, London, in particular Mrs.   J. McDermott, Solicitor, together with Mr.   D. Browne, Counsel, and Miss J. Braybrook, Solicitor.   3.       The application is directed against the United Kingdom.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   M. Wood of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Patrick Mayhew, QC, MP, Attorney General, Counsel, Mr.   N. Bratza, QC, Counsel, Mr.   P. Havers, Counsel, Mrs.   S. Evans, Home Office, and Mrs.   S. Marsh, Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers.   4.       The application concerns temporary injunctions preventing newspaper publication of details of the contents of the book "Spycatcher" by Peter Wright, a retired member of the British Security Service.   It raises issues under Articles 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 27 January 1988 and registered on 3 February 1988.   After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission decided on 7 October 1988 to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and to invite the parties to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   On 27 January 1989 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits, to which the applicants replied on 25 April 1989.   6.       On 9 May 1989 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application, to be joined with that of Times Newspapers Ltd and Neil v.   UK, Application No. 13166/87.   The hearing was held on 5 October 1989 with the parties represented as above (paras. 2 and 3).   Following the hearing and deliberations, the Commission declared the two applications admissible and disjoined them.   On 8 November 1989 the parties were sent the text of the Commission's decision on admissibility and they were invited to submit further information and observations on the merits of the case.   The applicants submitted the information requested on 15 December 1989. The Government submitted observations and information on 8 January 1990 to which the applicants replied on 21 February 1990.   The Government submitted further observations on 2 July 1990.   7.       After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   8.       The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A. WEITZEL                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 M.    C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES   9.       The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 12 July 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   10.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           1)   to establish the facts, and           2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found             disclose a breach by the State concerned of its             obligations under the Convention.   11.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as APPENDIX II.   12.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   13.      The application concerns restrictions imposed on the reporting of details about the book "Spycatcher" by Peter Wright.   14.      Mr.   Wright was for many years employed by the British Government as a member of MI5, a branch of the British Security Service.   He retired in 1976.   He now lives in Australia.   He decided to write his memoirs, including an account of what he claimed were illegal activities by the British Security Service in particular MI5. In those memoirs entitled "Spycatcher" (hereafter referred to as the book), Mr.   Wright alleged, inter alia, that MI5 conducted unlawful actitivies calculated to undermine the Labour Government of 1974-79, burgled and bugged the embassies of allied and hostile countries, planned and participated in other unlawful and covert activities at home and abroad and that Sir Roger Hollis, who led MI5 during the latter part of Mr.   Wright's employment, was a Soviet agent.   Mr Wright unsuccessfully sought to persuade the British Government to institute an independent inquiry into these allegations.   Such an inquiry was also sought by, amongst others, James Callaghan (Prime Minister 1976-79 and a senior member of the Cabinet of Harold Wilson 1974-76) and other prominent members of the Labour Government of 1974-79 including two former Home Secretaries, Roy Jenkins and Merlyn Rees. Part of the material in "Spycatcher" had already been published in a number of books about the British Security Service written by Chapman Pincher.   Moreover, on 16 July 1984 Mr.   Wright had given a lengthy interview to Granada Television in its "World in Action" programme about the work of the British Security Service.   The programme was shown again in December 1986.   Other books and another television programme on the workings and secrets of the Service were produced around the same time, but little Government action was taken against these authors or the media.   15.      In September 1985 the Attorney General of England and Wales (the Attorney General), on behalf of the UK Government, began proceedings in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, to restrain publication of Mr.   Wright's memoirs and of any information contained therein derived from his work for the British Security Service.   The evidential basis for the claim by the Attorney General was two affidavits sworn by Sir Robert Armstrong, Secretary to the British Cabinet, on 9 and 27 September 1985.   On 17 September 1985 Mr.   Wright and his Australian publishers, Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd. (Heinemann Australia), gave an undertaking not to publish pending the hearing of the British Government's claim for an injunction.   The British Government refused to indicate to Mr.   Wright and Heinemann Australia which parts of the book, if any, they wished to have "blue pencilled" as containing information damaging to national security.   16.      On Sunday 22 June 1986, whilst the Australian proceedings were still pending, the applicants David Leigh and Paul Lashmar published a short joint article in the Observer, on an inside page, giving details of some of the contents of Mr.   Wright's book.   This was followed the next day by a similar short article written by the applicant Richard Norton-Taylor and published in The Guardian.   The details disclosed by these reports included the following allegations of improper, criminal and unconstitutional conduct on the part of MI5 officers:           (i)    MI5 "bugged" all diplomatic conferences at Lancaster House in London throughout the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the Zimbabwe Independence negotiations in 1979.           (ii)   MI5 "bugged" diplomats from France, Germany, Greece and Indonesia, as well as the hotel suite of Mr.   Kruschev during his visit to Britain in the 1950s, and were guilty of routine burglary and bugging (including the entering of Russian consulates abroad).           (iii) MI5 plotted unsuccessfully to assassinate President Nasser of Egypt at the time of the Suez crisis.           (iv)   MI5 plotted against Harold Wilson during his premiership from 1974 to 1976.           (v)    MI5 (contrary to its guidelines) diverted its resources to investigate left-wing political groups in Britain.   17.      It was conceded by the applicants that the reports were not based on generally available international press releases or similar material.   They were based on the journalists' investigations from confidential sources.   However, much of the actual information contained in the articles had already been published in other books, newspapers and television interviews given by Mr.   Wright and other British Security Service officers.   The British Courts subsequently inferred that, on the balance of probabilities, the journalists' sources must have come from the offices of the publishers of "Spycatcher" or the solicitors acting for Mr.   Wright and his publishers (Scott J. judgment of 21 December 1987 (1988) 2WLR 805 at p. 815 F-G, see also paras. 52-53 below).   18.      The Attorney General instituted proceedings for breach of confidence in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales against the applicants and on 27 June 1986 obtained ex parte interim injunctions to restrain further such publication by any of the applicants pending the trial of the actions.   After an inter partes hearing on 11 July 1986, Mr.   Justice Millett (sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice) varied these injunctions restraining publication.   The evidential basis for the claim by the Attorney General was the two affidavits sworn by Sir Robert Armstrong in the Australian proceedings.   19.      In his judgment Mr.   Justice Millett noted that the newspapers intended printing further information about the alleged misconduct of the Security Service, which information was derived, directly or indirectly, from Mr.   Wright, in breach of his duty of confidentiality to the Crown.   In balancing the public interest in disclosure with the effective operation of the Security Service, the Court had to take all relevant considerations into account including the fact that this was an interlocutory application and not the trial, that the injunctions sought were merely temporary and that the refusal of injunctive relief might cause irreparable harm and effectively deprive the Attorney General of his rights as a litigant.   At that stage Mr.   Justice Millett held that some injunctive relief was necessary because there was credible evidence that the appearance of confidentiality was essential to the effective operation of the Security Service.   Such efficacy would be impaired if senior officers were known to be free to disclose what they learned in the Service.   While this evidence remained to be tested at the trial, the refusal of injunctive relief would permit indirect publication and deprive the Attorney General of his rights in advance of the trial.   He found no overriding urgency in the public's right to information, which, in his view, could wait until after the trial.   20.      The issue of these initial injunctions was deemed justified by the appellate courts throughout the interlocutory proceedings.   21.      The applicants appealed the Order of Mr.   Justice Millett and, on 25 July 1986, the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal and upheld the injunctions, with minor modifications.   Under the terms of the Orders the applicants were restrained from:           "1.      disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be         disclosed or published to any person any information obtained by         Peter Maurice Wright in his capacity as a member of the British         Security Service and which they know, or have reasonable grounds         to believe, to have come or been obtained, whether directly or         indirectly, from the said Peter Maurice Wright;           2.       attributing in any disclosure or publication made by         them to any person any information concerning the British         Security Service to the said Peter Maurice Wright whether by         name or otherwise."   22.      The Orders contained the following provisos:           "1.      this Order shall not prohibit direct quotation of         attributions to Peter Maurice Wright already made by         Mr.   Chapman Pincher in published works, or in a television         programme or programmes broadcast by Granada Television;           2.       no breach of this Order shall be constituted by the         disclosure or publication of any material disclosed in open         court in the Supreme Court of New South Wales unless prohibited         by the Judge there sitting or which, after the trial there in         action No. 4382 of 1985, is not prohibited from publication;           3.       no breach of this Order shall be constituted by a         fair and accurate report of proceedings in           (A)      either House of Parliament in the United Kingdom         whose publication is permitted by that House; or           (B)      a court in the United Kingdom sitting in public."   23.      In the judgment of the Court of Appeal interim injunctions restraining publication were granted because Mr.   Wright's book contained secret information which, in the view of the Court, might well cause damage to national security if disclosed.   The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords granted leave to appeal on 6 November 1986.   A hearing was eventually scheduled for November 1987, but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn in the light of the House of Lords decision of 30 July 1987 (see paras. 41-46 below).   24.      The trial of the British Government's action in Australia took place before Mr.   Justice Powell in the Equity Division of the New South Wales Supreme Court in November and December 1986.   Judgment was delivered on 13 March 1987.   Mr.   Justice Powell rejected the claim by the Attorney General against both Mr.   Wright and Heinemann Australia. Pending an appeal before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Mr. Wright and his publishers gave undertakings not to publish.   The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in the week commencing Monday, 27 July 1987.   Judgment was reserved.   25.      On 27 April 1987, The Independent published a major summary of certain of the allegations made in Mr.   Wright's book.   Later the same day, The London Evening Standard and The London Daily News published reports of what had appeared in The Independent.   The next day the Attorney General applied for leave to move against the publishers and editors of those three newspapers for contempt of court (hereafter referred to as the Independent case).   Leave was granted on 29 April 1987.   In this application the Attorney General was acting independently of the Government in his capacity as "the guardian of the public interest in the due administration of justice" (judgment of the Master of the Rolls in Attorney General v.   Newspaper Publishing Plc and Others (1987) 3WLR 942 at p. 965H).   This is to be distinguished from his capacity as Government representative in the breach of confidence proceedings against the present applicants.   26.      Similar reports appeared in Australian and American newspapers: on 29 April 1987 in The Melbourne Age and Canberra Times, and on 3 May 1987 in the Washington Post.   27.      Following these British newspaper publications the applicants applied on 29 April 1987 to discharge the injunctions against them on the ground that there had been a significant change in circumstances since the injunctions had been granted against them in 1986.   28.      The Vice-Chancellor, Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson, began to hear those applications on 7 May 1987, but adjourned them pending the determination of a preliminary issue of contempt law raised in the Independent case.   He invited the Attorney General to pursue these latter proceedings in the same court as the former proceedings, the Chancery Division of the High Court.   This the Attorney General did on 11 May 1988.   On the same day, the Vice-Chancellor ordered the trial of the preliminary issue whether a publication made in the knowledge of an outstanding injunction against another party, and which, if made by that other party would amount to a breach of that injunction, constituted a criminal contempt of court for interfering with the process of justice concerning that injunction.   29.      Viking Penguin Incorporated purchased from Heinemann Australia the United States (hereafter abbreviated to USA) publication rights to the book and on 14 May 1987 Viking Penguin announced its intention of publishing the book in the USA.   30.      On 2 June 1987, the Vice-Chancellor decided the preliminary issue of law in the contempt proceedings.   He held that publication by The Independent and the two London newspapers could not amount to contempt of court because such publication was not a breach of the express terms of the injunctions against the applicants and to which injunctions the former had anyway not been a party.   The Attorney General lodged an appeal against the Vice-Chancellor's judgment.   On 15 June 1987 the applicants applied to have the hearing of their discharge application restored.   Consideration of the discharge of the injunctions was, however, further adjourned pending the outcome of the Attorney General's appeal on the contempt issue in The Independent case, the hearing of which began on 22 June 1987.   31.      The Sunday Times purchased the British newspaper serialisation rights to the book from Heinemann Australia.   On 12 July 1987, The Sunday Times published the first instalment of extracts from the book. The newspaper explained that publication of the extracts was being timed to coincide with publication of the book in the USA, which was due to take place on 14 July 1987.   On 13 July 1987, the Attorney General commenced proceedings against Times Newspapers Limited and Andrew Neil for contempt of court.   (Hereafter reference will only be made to The Sunday Times newspaper and not the company or Mr.   Neil.) On 14 July 1987, Viking Penguin published the book in the USA.   It was an immediate bestseller, some 310,000 copies having been printed in the USA, with its fifth print run by the date of the application to the Commission.   A substantial number of copies were sold to British citizens visiting the USA or who purchased the book by telephone or post from bookshops in the USA. The British Government took no legal steps to attempt to restrain publication of the book in the USA or Canada, where it also became a bestseller.   Immediately after publication of the book in the USA, people began to bring copies of the book into the UK.   No steps were taken by the Government to prevent such imports.   It took the view that it had the powers to ban import of the book but that any such ban was likely to be ineffective. Anyone in the UK could purchase a copy of the book by credit card or cash from the USA by post or by telephone.   The telephone number and address of American bookshops willing to deliver the book to the UK were widely advertised in the UK.   32.      In the contempt proceedings in the Independent case the Court of Appeal (Sir John Donaldson MR, Lloyd LJ and Balcombe LJ) announced on 15 July 1987 (for reasons handed down on 17 July 1987) that it would reverse the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor and decided unanimously that such publication could, as a matter of law, amount to a contempt of court.   In his judgment, Sir John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls, stressed that confidentiality, not official secrecy, was the central issue in the case.   He held, inter alia, that if a court had prohibited publication of information pending trial which was said to be confidential, but publication was nevertheless made, there was no point in having a trial since the cloak of confidentiality could never be restored.   The contempt issue in the present case involved an interference with the due administration of justice.   The application of the law of contempt being universal, the fact that it was to be applied in novel circumstances, i.e. to newspapers not party to the injunction against the applicants, was not a widening of its application but a new example of its application.   Third parties with a legitimate interest in the injunction could apply to the court for its modification or apply for clarification if they had doubts whether the action they contemplated was lawful.   33.      In his concurring judgment, Lloyd LJ held, inter alia, as follows:           "...   I would accept that not all acts which are calculated         to interfere with the course of justice will necessarily         ground a charge of contempt.   The act must be sufficiently         serious and sufficiently closely connected with the         particular proceedings.   But in the present case the conduct         relied on by the Attorney General is not marginal.   It is         not a mere prejudging of the issue to be decided in the         particular proceeding.   It is not a mere usurpation of the         court's function.   It is the destruction, in whole or in         part, of the subject matter of the action itself.   The         central issue in the Guardian action is whether The Guardian         should be restrained from publishing confidential information         attributable to Mr.   Wright.   Once the information   has         been published by another newspaper, the confidentiality         evaporates.   The point of the action is gone.   It is         difficult to imagine a more obvious and more serious         interference with the course of justice than to destroy         the thing in dispute."   34.      Balcombe LJ agreed with his colleagues.   The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.   No petition for such an appeal was lodged with the House of Lords itself and no application was made to the High Court by The Independent, The London Evening Standard or The London Daily News to modify the interim injunctions against the applicants.   35.      The Sunday Times made it clear that, unless restrained by law, the second set of extracts from the book would be published on Sunday, 19 July 1987.   On 16 July, the Attorney General applied for an injunction to restrain The Sunday Times from publishing further extracts from the book.   The Attorney General brought his claim to restrain what he said would be a contempt of court by reason of the injunctions against the applicants and by reason of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Independent case.   36.      The Vice-Chancellor granted a temporary injunction restraining publication by The Sunday Times until Tuesday, 21 July 1987.   It was agreed that on Monday, 20 July 1987 the Vice-Chancellor would consider the claim of the applicants to have the injunctions against them discharged and that The Sunday Times would (by reason of being effectively bound by those injunctions because of the Court of Appeal judgment in the Independent case) have a right to be heard in support of that claim.   He was also to hear the Attorney General's application for an injunction against The Sunday Times.   It was agreed that if the injunctions against the applicants were discharged, his claim against The Sunday Times would also fail.   37.      The Vice-Chancellor heard argument from 20 to 22 July 1987. He gave judgment on 22 July as follows:           (i)      If there had been a material change of circumstances         since July 1986, he had to consider whether it was now         appropriate to grant injunctions against the applicants.           (ii)     There had been "a most substantial change in         circumstances".   He regarded as most significant the fact         that the book had been published in the USA and was         available in and had reached the UK.           (iii)    The Vice-Chancellor was bound by the principles         laid down by the House of Lords in American Cyanamid Co         v.   Ethicon Ltd <1975> AC 396 concerning the grant of         interlocutory injunctions, namely, it is not the court's         function at this intermediary stage to determine complex         questions of law and fact which call for detailed argument         and mature consideration.   These matters are for the trial         court to decide.   However, if there is an arguable case         that an injunction may be granted at trial, and if neither         side could be adequately compensated in damages after trial,         then whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted         depends on the balance of convenience.           (iv)     The Vice-Chancellor held that the Attorney General had         an arguable case under the law of confidence (albeit one that         he strongly doubted was correct), that he might obtain an         injunction against the newspapers at trial even though they         were neither confidants nor aiders and abettors of a         confidant, and even though the information, the publication         of which the Attorney General wished to restrain, was now         known or available to the public as a result of publication         in the USA.           (v)      He held that damages would be an inadequate remedy         to compensate the Attorney General if he failed to obtain an         interlocutory injunction but were successful at trial.   He         also held that damages would not be a sufficient remedy to         compensate the newspapers for restraints on publication were         they to succeed at trial.           (vi)     He then proceeded to consider the balance of convenience.         He held that, weighing all the factors, it was inappropriate         to continue the injunctions.   This was because the information         contained in the book was no longer secret and the only public         interest in restraining publication - to deter other members         of the Security Service from seeking to publish their memoirs -         was outweighed by the public interest in freedom of expression         and the freedom of the press in all the circumstances of this         case.   He commented as follows:                   "The truth of the matter is that in the contemporary                 world of electronics and jumbo jets news anywhere is                 news everywhere.   But whilst the news is international,                 the jurisdiction of this court is strictly territorial.                 Once the news is out by publication in the United States                 and the importation of the book into this country, the                 law could, I think, be justifiably accused of being an                 ass and brought into disrepute if it closed its eyes to                 that reality and sought by injunction to prevent the                 press or anyone else from repeating information which                 is now freely available to all."   38.      The Attorney General immediately appealed and pending that appeal the injunctions against the applicants, but not against The Sunday Times, were continued in force.   39.      The Court of Appeal (Sir John Donaldson MR, Ralph Gibson LJ and Russell LJ) heard argument on this matter on 23 and 24 July 1987. In its judgment of 24 July 1987 the Court of Appeal decided as follows:           (i)      The Vice-Chancellor had erred in law in various         respects.           (ii)     Therefore it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal         to exercise its own discretion.           (iii)    In the light of the American publication of the book,         it was inappropriate to continue the injunctions in their         original form.   However, it was appropriate to vary the         original injunctions to restrain publication in the course of         business of all or part of the book or other statements by or         attributed to Peter Wright on security matters, but to permit         a summary in general terms of his allegations.   40.      The Court of Appeal gave leave to all parties to appeal to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.   41.      The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (Lord Bridge, Lord Brandon, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver) heard argument from 27 to 29 July 1987.   They gave judgment on Thursday, 30 July 1987.   They decided, by a majority of 3-2, to continue the temporary injunctions granted by Mr.   Justice Millett and the Court of Appeal in July 1986.   Lord Bridge (the immediate past Chairman of the Security Commission, the Government body responsible for supervising aspects of the work of the British Security Service) and Lord Oliver dissented on the ground that no injunctions should lie against the applicants because the information was no longer secret.   However, the majority of the Appellate Committee decided that the scope of the injunctions granted in 1986 should be widened to restrict certain reporting of what would take place in open court in the further Australian proceedings, otherwise passages from the book read out in the Australian courts might be reproduced in English newspapers, thus circumventing the injunctions.   Its written reasons for the judgment were given on 13 August 1987 (1987 1WLR 1248).   42.      Lord Brandon (with whose observations Lord Templeman agreed) held, inter alia, as follows:           (i)      it was of the utmost importance that the injunctions         in issue were interlocutory injunctions, that is temporary         injunctions having effect until the trial of the action only;         continuation of the injunction until trial did not in any         way prejudge the validity of the Attorney General's claim         to final injunctions, its purpose being only to hold the         ring until a just decision on the validity of that claim         could be made;           (ii)     before the publication of the book in America the         Attorney General had a strong arguable case for obtaining         at trial final injunctions in terms similar to those of         the temporary injunctions; this was the view taken by         Millett J. and the Court of Appeal and was not really open         to challenge;           (iii)    the key issue was whether the publication of the book         in the USA had the effect that the Attorney General no longer         had an arguable claim to permanent injunctions at trial;         although the Attorney General's case for obtaining final         injunctions at trial had been much weakened by the publication         of the book, it remained nevertheless an arguable case;           (iv)     in order to enable a court to carry out properly the         exercise of weighing and balancing the public right to freedom         of expression in the press and the public interest in the         protection of the secrecy of the British Security Service,         it was essential that it should have adduced before it the         best possible evidence on the crucial questions which arose         in the case in the form of oral evidence from witnesses         subject to cross-examination; the only way in which it         could thus justly be decided whether the Attorney General's         case, being still arguable, should succeed or fail was by         having the action tried;           (v)      if the temporary injunction were discharged now, so         that the newspapers were left free to disseminate generally         the disclosures made in the book, there would be no point         in the Attorney General proceeding to trial; his arguable         case would have been completely destr