Times Newspapers Ltd v Abdulaziz [2016] EWCA Crim 887 (08 July 2016)

Times Newspapers Ltd v Abdulaziz [2016] EWCA Crim 887 (08 July 2016)

The court held that it was necessary to restrain publication of the wording to avoid frustrating the purpose of the in camera order; the court had jurisdiction under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prohibit publication of the wording, as it was a matter allowed to be withheld from the public by necessary implication; and the procedure adopted, though excluding TNL from part of the hearing, was justified on the facts and did not render the process unfair.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 887
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Times Newspapers Ltd; Respondent: R; Defendant: Ehsan Abdulaziz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Order Under S.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, In Camera Hearings, Contempt of Court, Section 11 Orders
Criminal Law Media Law Open Justice Reporting Restrictions In Camera Hearings Contempt of Court Section 11 Orders

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Times Newspapers Ltd

Applicant/appellant

R

Respondent

Ehsan Abdulaziz

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Order Under S.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was necessary to depart from the principle of open justice regarding the reporting of certain wording used by the trial judge
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to restrain publication of the wording used in open court
  3. 3 Whether the procedure adopted in hearing the application for the reporting restriction was fair, particularly the exclusion of the applicant from part of the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was necessary to restrain publication of the wording to avoid frustrating the purpose of the in camera order; the court had jurisdiction under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prohibit publication of the wording, as it was a matter allowed to be withheld from the public by necessary implication; and the procedure adopted, though excluding TNL from part of the hearing, was justified on the facts and did not render the process unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 covering the hearing before the Court of Appeal discharged.
  • Order under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made prohibiting publication of any matter tending to identify the terms or nature of 'the wording' referred to at [7] of the Open Judgment handed down on 8th July, 2016, to remain in effect until further order.