Pembrokeshire Herald, Re (leave to appeal) (Rev1) [2021] EWCA Crim 1165 (27 July 2021)

Pembrokeshire Herald, Re (leave to appeal) (Rev1) [2021] EWCA Crim 1165 (27 July 2021)

The application for extension of time to appeal the April RRO is refused due to unjustified delay and lack of sufficient explanation; the Court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration under s 159; judicial review of the May refusal is also refused as the application was essentially a second attempt to challenge the original order, and no sufficient change of circumstances or legal error was shown.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Crim 1165
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Pembrokeshire Herald; Defendant/respondent: James Oulton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Reporting Restriction Order and Refusal to Revoke or Vary the Order
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; permission for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Anonymity of Witnesses, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Criminal Justice Act 1988, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Media Law Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Anonymity of Witnesses Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Criminal Justice Act 1988 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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pembrokeshire Herald

Applicant/appellant

James Oulton

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Reporting Restriction Order and Refusal to Revoke or Vary the Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reporting restriction order (RRO) made under s 46 YJCEA was lawful and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to revoke or vary the RRO after acquittal was lawful
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal out of time or to grant judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time to appeal the April RRO is refused due to unjustified delay and lack of sufficient explanation; the Court has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration under s 159; judicial review of the May refusal is also refused as the application was essentially a second attempt to challenge the original order, and no sufficient change of circumstances or legal error was shown.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; permission for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • No extension of time for appeal granted.
  • No declaration made.