Trinity Mirror & Ors, R (on the application of) v Croydon Crown Court
The Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to make the order restraining media identification of the defendant and his convictions for the protection of his children, as such an order was not incidental to its jurisdiction and not supported by s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 or s.45(4) Supreme Court Act 1981. The proper court for such an order is the High Court.
- Parties
- Appellant: Trinity Mirror plc; Appellant: Times Newspapers Ltd; Appellant: News Group Newspapers Ltd; Appellant: Newsquest Ltd; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service; Intervener: A and B (Minors, acting by the Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 01 February 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Crown Court Order Under S.159 Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Protection of Children, Jurisdiction of Crown Court, Injunctions, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Trinity Mirror plc
Appellant
Times Newspapers Ltd
Appellant
News Group Newspapers Ltd
Appellant
Newsquest Ltd
Appellant
Crown Prosecution Service
Respondent
A and B (Minors, acting by the Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court)
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Crown Court Order Under S.159 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the Crown Court have jurisdiction to make an order restraining media identification of the defendant and his convictions to protect his children?
- 2 Was the order under s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 or s.45(4) Supreme Court Act 1981 valid?
- 3 Should the balance between Article 8 (children's rights) and Article 10 (media freedom) be resolved in favour of the children?
Ratio Decidendi
The Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to make the order restraining media identification of the defendant and his convictions for the protection of his children, as such an order was not incidental to its jurisdiction and not supported by s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 or s.45(4) Supreme Court Act 1981. The proper court for such an order is the High Court.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Judge's order restraining media identification discharged
- No reporting restriction remains in force
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment