Which court decided it?

Supreme Court in 2010. Neutral citation: [2010] UKSC 1.

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Open justice presumption applies vigorously to identity of persons named in judicial orders. Article 10 press freedom and public interest in reporting were substantially engaged. Article 8 interests of the individuals did not outweigh open justice in the circumstances.

In re Guardian News and Media Ltd

[2010] UKSC 1 — Supreme Court, 2010

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

The Supreme Court lifted anonymity orders that had shielded the identities of individuals subject to asset-freezing orders under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006. Held that the presumption of open justice was strong and required specific justification to displace.

Key rulings

Open justice presumption applies vigorously to identity of persons named in judicial orders.
Article 10 press freedom and public interest in reporting were substantially engaged.
Article 8 interests of the individuals did not outweigh open justice in the circumstances.

Topics

Open justiceReporting restrictionsArticle 10 ECHR

Related cases (citator)

How this case connects to others in the landmark set — lines of authority, statutory supersession, and companion rulings.

Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49
Both concern open justice and anonymity orders.
Guardian News and Media Ltd v Incedal [2014] EWCA Crim 1861
Both address reporting restrictions balanced against open justice.

Acts cited

Human Rights Act 1998

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/1.html

Cite this page

Format

In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1 (Supreme Court) &lt;https://www.ukjournohub.com/law/landmark-cases/in-re-guardian-news-media&gt; accessed 14 July 2026.

Please cite when quoting or paraphrasing on UK JournoHub — see /ai.txt for policy.

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseGuardian News and Media Ltd v Incedal [2014] EWCA Crim 1861Read →Landmark caseAshdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142Read →Landmark caseFinancial Times Ltd and Others v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 46Read →Landmark caseGoodwin v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 123Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.