Guardian News And Media Ltd v Incedal & Anor [2014] EWCA Crim 1861 (24 September 2014)

Guardian News And Media Ltd v Incedal & Anor [2014] EWCA Crim 1861 (24 September 2014)

The core of the trial must be held in camera due to a compelling risk that the administration of justice would be frustrated if held in public, but departures from open justice must be minimized. The anonymisation of defendants is not justified where the trial is already in camera. Reporting restrictions under s.4(2) CCA 1981 are not justified for open court proceedings or judgments.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Crim 1861
Parties
Appellants: Guardian News and Media Ltd, Associated Newspapers Limited, BBC, BSKYB Limited, Express Newspapers, Independent Print Limited, ITN, Mirror Group Newspapers Limited, News Group Newspapers Limited, Telegraph Media Group, Times Newspapers Limited, Press Association; First Defendant: Erol Incedal; Second Defendant: Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar; Prosecution: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Orders for in Camera Trial, Anonymisation, and Reporting Restrictions
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders varied
Legal Topics
Open Justice, National Security, Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity Orders, In Camera Proceedings
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Media Law Open Justice National Security Reporting Restrictions Anonymity Orders In Camera Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guardian News and Media Ltd, Associated Newspapers Limited, BBC, BSKYB Limited, Express Newspapers, Independent Print Limited, ITN, Mirror Group Newspapers Limited, News Group Newspapers Limited, Telegraph Media Group, Times Newspapers Limited, Press Association

Appellants

Erol Incedal

First Defendant

Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar

Second Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Orders for in Camera Trial, Anonymisation, and Reporting Restrictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the criminal trial should be held in camera (private)
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be anonymised
  3. 3 Whether reporting restrictions under s.4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 should be imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The core of the trial must be held in camera due to a compelling risk that the administration of justice would be frustrated if held in public, but departures from open justice must be minimized. The anonymisation of defendants is not justified where the trial is already in camera. Reporting restrictions under s.4(2) CCA 1981 are not justified for open court proceedings or judgments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders varied

Orders

  • Core of the trial to be held in camera; certain elements (jury swearing, charges, part of judge's remarks, part of prosecution opening, verdicts, sentencing) to be in open court
  • Defendants' anonymisation order set aside; defendants may be named