HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE AGAINST CRAIG MURRAY [2021] ScotHC HCJ_2 (25 March 2021)

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE AGAINST CRAIG MURRAY [2021] ScotHC HCJ_2 (25 March 2021)

The respondent's publications, judged objectively, contained information likely to lead to the identification of complainers in breach of the section 11 order. The test is whether there is a real risk of identification, including by a section of the public, not just the public at large. Intent is irrelevant; strict...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ScotHC HCJ_2
Parties
Petitioner: Her Majesty's Advocate; Respondent: Craig Murray
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Petition and Complaint (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Merits After Hearing on Petition and Answers
Outcome
Petition upheld in part; respondent found in contempt of court for breach of section 11 order; other grounds refused.
Legal Topics
Anonymity of Sexual Offence Complainers, Section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, Strict Liability Contempt, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Jigsaw Identification, Delay in Contempt Proceedings
Criminal Law Media Law Contempt of Court Human Rights Anonymity of Sexual Offence Complainers Section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 Strict Liability Contempt Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Advocate

Petitioner

Craig Murray

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition and Complaint (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Merits After Hearing on Petition and Answers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's publications breached a section 11 order by publishing information likely to identify complainers in a sexual offence trial
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's publications and moderation of comments created a substantial risk of prejudice to the trial proceedings under sections 1 and 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
  3. 3 Whether an article breached a section 4(2) order regarding juror discharge

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's publications, judged objectively, contained information likely to lead to the identification of complainers in breach of the section 11 order. The test is whether there is a real risk of identification, including by a section of the public, not just the public at large. Intent is irrelevant; strict liability applies. Delay was fatal to the Crown's case on substantial risk of prejudice under sections 1 and 2, but not to the section 11 breach. The section 4(2) order was not breached as the article did not refer to the protected material. The orders and findings are compatible with Article 10 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Petition upheld in part; respondent found in contempt of court for breach of section 11 order; other grounds refused.

Orders

  • Respondent found in contempt of court for publishing information likely to identify complainers in breach of section 11 order.
  • Petition refused in respect of alleged breach of section 4(2) order and substantial risk of prejudice under sections 1 and 2 due to delay.