A contempt of court ruling in an Official Secrets Act trial at the Old Bailey created a “nonsensical situation” for the media, a QC said yesterday.

Andrew Nicol said that Mr Justice Aikens had imposed restraints on the media that meant they were banned for ever from linking the evidence from the trial of two men charged with leaking a secret document with reports already in the public domain that purportedly revealed its contents.

Appealing against the ruling on behalf of The Times and other newspapers and broadcasting organisations, Mr Nicol said that the decision meant that the media could write about the trial on one page and “recycle” what was in the public domain on another, provided that the two stories were not connected in any way. Appearing before Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, and two other judges, Mr Nicol called it a nonsensical situation.

Mr Justice Aikens had made the ruling during the trial in May of David Keogh, a 50-year-old civil servant, and Leo O’Connor, a 44-year-old parliamentary researcher. Both were found guilty of breaching the Official Secrets Act after disclosing a classified letter from Tony Blair’s private secretary for foreign affairst that recorded details of a meeting about Iraq between Mr Blair and President Bush in April 2004.

Mr Justice Aikens issued two orders under the Contempt of Court Act. Under one of them, members of the press were barred from reporting a remark made by Keogh when he was being questioned in open court by his counsel. The judge had ruled at the start of the case that the trial would be held in camera whenever the details of the letter were to be mentioned.

Keogh, a civil servant working at the Cabinet Office, had been asked for his reaction to the contents of the secret letter sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He had seen it in the course of his job as a communications officer. The letter had preyed on his mind over the weekend, Keogh said, and he explained why in graphic terms. The judge said that Keogh’s comment should have been heard only in camera, when the press and public were barred. He imposed a permanent contempt order on the press.

The judge also ruled that even though The Mirror had written a story in 2005 claiming to have a leaked version of the secret letter, any repetition of what was already in the public domain had to be kept separate from reports about the trial to avoid prejudicing the administration of justice.

Lord Justice Elias, one of the judges in yesterday’s hearing at the Court of Appeal, acknowledged that the risk of prejudicing the administration of justice in this particular trial was a “wholly futile” argument because the jury had seen the letter for themselves.

Judgment was reserved.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure