Marines A & Ors v Guardian News and Media & Other Media

Marines A & Ors v Guardian News and Media & Other Media

The Court Martial Appeal Court had jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding refusal to release video and still images but not to hear appeals against lifting the anonymity order; the latter could only be reviewed by judicial review. The judge's finding that there was no real and immediate risk to life if the Marines were identified was open to him on the evidence, and thus the order lifting anonymity was lawful. The refusal to release certain images was justified due to a real and immediate risk to life. The principle of open justice required the identification of the convicted Marine (A), and there was insufficient risk to justify anonymity for acquitted Marines (B and C), though one judge...

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellants/claimants: Marines A, B, C, D, E; Interested Party: Guardian News and Media and other Media; Defendant: The Judge Advocate General; Interested Party: The Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment on Appeal and Judicial Review of Court Martial Orders
Outcome
Appeal by media parties against refusal to release video and certain stills dismissed; judicial review of lifting anonymity for Marines A, B, and C dismissed; cases of Marines D and E remitted for further consideration.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, Right to Life (article 2), Freedom of Expression (article 10), Right to Private Life (article 8), Judicial Review, Court Martial Procedure
Criminal Law Military Law Media Law Human Rights Law Open Justice Reporting Restrictions Right to Life (article 2) Freedom of Expression (article 10) +3 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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Marines A, B, C, D, E

Appellants/claimants

Guardian News and Media and other Media

Interested Party

The Judge Advocate General

Defendant

The Ministry of Defence

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment on Appeal and Judicial Review of Court Martial Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court Martial Appeal Court had jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding reporting restrictions and identification orders
  2. 2 Whether the prohibition on identification of Marines should be maintained or lifted
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to release video and still images from the trial was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Court Martial Appeal Court had jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding refusal to release video and still images but not to hear appeals against lifting the anonymity order; the latter could only be reviewed by judicial review. The judge's finding that there was no real and immediate risk to life if the Marines were identified was open to him on the evidence, and thus the order lifting anonymity was lawful. The refusal to release certain images was justified due to a real and immediate risk to life. The principle of open justice required the identification of the convicted Marine (A), and there was insufficient risk to justify anonymity for acquitted Marines (B and C), though one judge...

Court Disposition

Appeal by media parties against refusal to release video and certain stills dismissed; judicial review of lifting anonymity for Marines A, B, and C dismissed; cases of Marines D and E remitted for further consideration.

Orders

  • Refusal to release video and certain still images upheld.
  • Further still images in Category 2 permitted to be released.