Guardian News and Media Ltd v Incedal

What the court held

The trial judge had ordered that a terrorism trial be held entirely in private, that reports of it be prohibited, and that the defendants be anonymised, using the common law together with ss.4(2) and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Media organisations appealed under s.159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal did NOT quash the order: it accepted that the core of the trial had to be heard in camera, holding the case for that "compelling". But it refused the defendants’ anonymity, and it permitted up to ten accredited journalists to attend the bulk of the trial on confidentiality terms, excluded only from a few discrete matters. The leading modern authority on how far a criminal trial can be closed to the press, and on what open justice can still salvage when it is.

Key rulings

• The Court of Appeal accepted that the core of the trial should be heard in camera, but did not accept that the whole trial should be.
• Defendant anonymity was refused — the court was not persuaded that withholding the names served any sufficient purpose.
• Up to ten accredited journalists were permitted to attend the private parts of the trial, subject to confidentiality until further order.
• Selection of those journalists was expressly NOT left to the Secretaries of State; disputes were to be resolved by the media parties or referred back to the court.
• Media challenges to orders closing a Crown Court trial proceed by appeal under s.159 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Topics

Related cases (citator)

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

• In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1

  Both concern reporting restrictions and open justice.

Acts cited

• Contempt of Court Act 1981
• Criminal Justice Act 1988

Authoritative source