Wright, R. v (Ruling on Anonymity) [2020] EW Misc 22 (CCrimC) (09 July 2020)

Wright, R. v (Ruling on Anonymity) [2020] EW Misc 22 (CCrimC) (09 July 2020)

Anonymity and reporting restrictions for the complainant (a major supermarket) are not justified at trial because the case does not involve a classic blackmail scenario where the victim has something disreputable to hide. Open justice requires the complainant to be named in open court, and the trial cannot fairly proceed without such identification. There is no absolute right to anonymity for corporate blackmail victims, and the risk of reputational harm does not outweigh the principle of open justice.

Citation
[2020] EW Misc 22 (CCrimC)
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Nigel Wright; Complainant: Major supermarket chain (Complainant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Anonymity and Reporting Restrictions
Outcome
Application for continued anonymity and reporting restrictions at trial refused.
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Blackmail, Corporate Victims, Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court
Criminal Law Media Law Human Rights Law Anonymity Orders Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Blackmail Corporate Victims +2 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Nigel Wright

Defendant

Major supermarket chain (Complainant)

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Anonymity and Reporting Restrictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant (a corporate blackmail victim) is entitled to anonymity and reporting restrictions at trial
  2. 2 Whether reporting restrictions should be imposed to prevent identification of the complainant in open court
  3. 3 Whether open justice requires the complainant to be named during trial proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Anonymity and reporting restrictions for the complainant (a major supermarket) are not justified at trial because the case does not involve a classic blackmail scenario where the victim has something disreputable to hide. Open justice requires the complainant to be named in open court, and the trial cannot fairly proceed without such identification. There is no absolute right to anonymity for corporate blackmail victims, and the risk of reputational harm does not outweigh the principle of open justice.

Court Disposition

Application for continued anonymity and reporting restrictions at trial refused.

Orders

  • Anonymity and reporting restrictions to continue only until commencement of trial; at trial, the complainant will be named and no reporting restrictions will apply to information disclosed in open court.