seriously
impeded or prejudiced”. Therefore, there has to be a substantial risk; it has to relate to “the course of justice in the proceedings in question” and there must be a substantial risk that such proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Moreover, these two high hurdles have to be established to the criminal burden of proof and not the civil one. The defendants do not suggest to the contrary. 31.There is a sub-dispute about whether the proceedings in question are still active, but I am satisfied that they are. However, I fail to see how either of these press releases creates any substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. This is a trial held by a judge, not by a jury, and in those circumstances it is difficult to see any risk at all that the course of justice will be in any way impeded or prejudiced. In any event it seems to me that what happened in this case fell a long way short of proving any of these requirements. At most one press release contained one ambiguity; the undisputed evidence of the claimant’s solicitor that the ambiguity was unintended; and it was corrected within 24, perhaps 48, hours of the complaint. 32.So far as abuse of process is concerned, the defendants have made it clear that they rely on the same arguments. In my judgment, that allegation falls for the same reasons. 33.So far as the malicious falsehood allegation is concerned, the defendants have not suggested that I can decide this today without a trial. They nevertheless submit that there is a sufficiently strong case of malicious falsehood to justify the relief sought. When I turn to the elements of the tort, it requires “false words which are maliciously published and which are calculated to cause and do cause the claimant pecuniary loss”: see eg