AG v Williams [2023] JRC 097 (20 June 2023)

AG v Williams [2023] JRC 097 (20 June 2023)

The presumption of open justice in criminal proceedings is only displaced where it is strictly necessary to do so in the interests of justice. In this case, despite the defendant's vulnerabilities and hostile social media commentary, the evidence does not reach the threshold of necessity to justify private hearings or reporting restrictions. The public interest in open justice and the administration of criminal justice outweighs the risks identified by the defence. All proceedings must be held in public, with publication of this judgment postponed until after any trial concludes.

Citation
[2023] JRC 097
Parties
Defendant: Defendant; Prosecution: Attorney General; Media Intervenor: Jersey Evening Post; Media Intervenor: Bailiwick Express
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application Regarding Private Hearings
Outcome
Application for private hearings refused; proceedings to be held in public.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, Mental Health in Criminal Proceedings, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Contempt of Court, Sexual Offences, Vulnerable Defendants
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Media Law Open Justice Reporting Restrictions Mental Health in Criminal Proceedings Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +4 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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecution

Jersey Evening Post

Media Intervenor

Bailiwick Express

Media Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application Regarding Private Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether criminal proceedings involving a vulnerable defendant with significant mental health issues should be heard in private rather than in public.
  2. 2 Whether publication of proceedings should be postponed or restricted due to risks to the defendant's mental health and fair trial rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of open justice in criminal proceedings is only displaced where it is strictly necessary to do so in the interests of justice. In this case, despite the defendant's vulnerabilities and hostile social media commentary, the evidence does not reach the threshold of necessity to justify private hearings or reporting restrictions. The public interest in open justice and the administration of criminal justice outweighs the risks identified by the defence. All proceedings must be held in public, with publication of this judgment postponed until after any trial concludes.

Court Disposition

Application for private hearings refused; proceedings to be held in public.

Orders

  • All proceedings in this case to take place in public.
  • Publication of this judgment is postponed until any trial of the defendant has concluded.