A & Ors, R v

A & Ors, R v

The substantial risk of prejudice to national security and the administration of justice without an in camera order is unequivocally established; the order enables fair trial while protecting national security; Rule 67.2 is not incompatible with Article 6 ECHR and does not require an oral hearing.

Parties
Defendant: A; Prosecutor: The Crown; Appellant: Times Newspapers Ltd; Appellant: Guardian Newspapers Ltd; Appellant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against in Camera Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, National Security, In Camera Hearings, Fair Trial, Media Access, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Open Justice National Security In Camera Hearings Fair Trial Media Access +1 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Defendant

The Crown

Prosecutor

Times Newspapers Ltd

Appellant

Guardian Newspapers Ltd

Appellant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against in Camera Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the in camera order restricting public access to parts of the trial was justified
  2. 2 Whether Rule 67.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are entitled to an oral hearing on appeal against the in camera order

Ratio Decidendi

The substantial risk of prejudice to national security and the administration of justice without an in camera order is unequivocally established; the order enables fair trial while protecting national security; Rule 67.2 is not incompatible with Article 6 ECHR and does not require an oral hearing.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted to defendant and media appellants
  • In camera order upheld