Blackman, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 326 (28 March 2017)

Blackman, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 326 (28 March 2017)

The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that release of the three video clips would significantly endanger lives by facilitating radicalisation and terrorist propaganda; balancing open justice and Article 10 rights against public safety, the court refused disclosure.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 326
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Alexander Wayne Blackman; Interested Parties: BBC, ITN, Times Newspapers Limited, British Sky Broadcasting, Guardian News and Media and Associated Newspapers Ltd; Interested Party: The Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Release of Evidence (video Clips)
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, Article 2 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Threat to Life, Media Access to Evidence
Criminal Law Media Law Human Rights Law Open Justice Reporting Restrictions Article 2 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Threat to Life +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Alexander Wayne Blackman

Appellant

BBC, ITN, Times Newspapers Limited, British Sky Broadcasting, Guardian News and Media and Associated Newspapers Ltd

Interested Parties

The Ministry of Defence

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Release of Evidence (video Clips)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the court release three video clips to the media given alleged threat to life?
  2. 2 Does Article 2 ECHR require identification of perpetrator and victim for threat to life?
  3. 3 How should the balance between open justice and public safety be struck under Article 10 ECHR?

Ratio Decidendi

The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that release of the three video clips would significantly endanger lives by facilitating radicalisation and terrorist propaganda; balancing open justice and Article 10 rights against public safety, the court refused disclosure.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Refusal of application for release of three video clips to media parties.
  • Reporting restrictions imposed for directions and application hearings, later lifted at appeal hearing.