Harper & Anor, R (on the application of) v Aldershot Magistrates Court

Harper & Anor, R (on the application of) v Aldershot Magistrates Court

The claimants failed to establish that withholding their addresses was necessary to protect the administration of justice or their safety. The risk was speculative, the information was already in the public domain, and there was no justification for interfering with the principle of open justice. The Magistrates were correct to refuse the application.

Parties
Claimant: Adrian Harper; Claimant: Jonathan Johncox; Defendant: Aldershot Magistrates Court; Interested Party: The Press Association; Interested Party: Surrey and Berkshire Media; Interested Party: CPS Hampshire
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused; injunction discharged.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Publication Restrictions, Contempt of Court, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Media Law Open Justice Publication Restrictions Contempt of Court Judicial Review

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Harper

Claimant

Jonathan Johncox

Claimant

Aldershot Magistrates Court

Defendant

The Press Association

Interested Party

Surrey and Berkshire Media

Interested Party

CPS Hampshire

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrates erred in refusing to prohibit publication of the claimants' home addresses
  2. 2 Whether withholding addresses was necessary to protect the administration of justice or claimants' safety
  3. 3 Whether Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish that withholding their addresses was necessary to protect the administration of justice or their safety. The risk was speculative, the information was already in the public domain, and there was no justification for interfering with the principle of open justice. The Magistrates were correct to refuse the application.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused; injunction discharged.

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is refused.
  • The injunction made by Jack J is discharged.