Felstead & Ors v Post Office Ltd

Felstead & Ors v Post Office Ltd

No contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondent or the court on 18 or 19 November 2020; the matter was only raised as a preliminary issue. The court determined that further consideration of possible contempt should be adjourned until after the appeals, and that any such proceedings should be before a different constitution. The court found that procedural requirements under the Criminal Procedure Rules had not been triggered at the relevant time, and that no procedural unfairness had occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Tracy Felstead; Appellant: Janet Skinner; Appellant: Seema Misra; Respondent: Post Office Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Possible Contempt and Directions
Outcome
Adjournment of consideration of possible contempt; directions given for further conduct of appeals and possible contempt proceedings
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Implied Undertaking, Civil Contempt, Criminal Procedure Rules, Professional Ethics
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Professional Conduct Disclosure of Evidence Implied Undertaking Civil Contempt Criminal Procedure Rules Professional Ethics

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy Felstead

Appellant

Janet Skinner

Appellant

Seema Misra

Appellant

Post Office Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Ruling on Possible Contempt and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provision of disclosed material (the Clarke advice) to a journalist and a police officer by counsel constituted a breach of an implied undertaking and/or a contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the court or the respondent should initiate contempt proceedings and under what procedure
  3. 3 Whether the Criminal Procedure Rules Part 48 were followed and whether procedural fairness was observed

Ratio Decidendi

No contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondent or the court on 18 or 19 November 2020; the matter was only raised as a preliminary issue. The court determined that further consideration of possible contempt should be adjourned until after the appeals, and that any such proceedings should be before a different constitution. The court found that procedural requirements under the Criminal Procedure Rules had not been triggered at the relevant time, and that no procedural unfairness had occurred.

Court Disposition

Adjournment of consideration of possible contempt; directions given for further conduct of appeals and possible contempt proceedings

Orders

  • Consideration of whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against Mr Marshall and/or Ms Page adjourned until after conclusion of appeals
  • All further hearings on contempt to be before a different constitution