A and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc: CACD 13 Jan 2006

The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the trial were be held in camera. The claimant media bodies now sought leave to report the hearings. Though some evidence would be given in camera, it would then be made available.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘The purpose of the notice under Rule 16.10(1) is to enable those affected to be given a proper opportunity to consider how best to deal with it. In our judgment this notice, set in the context of the other available material, was sufficient for the purposes of Rule 16.10. No one can have been in any doubt that both limbs of Rule 16.10 (1) were engaged. ‘ Leave to appeal should be given to both parties. The starting point is that every infringement of the principle of open justice is significant. We emphasise that does not mean that it will always be appropriate for leave to appeal to be given when a judge has decided that the whole or part of a trial should take place in camera.’ Where the applicatin had been recorded rather than a shorthand writer employed, the transcript should be checked by the judge who heard the application before it was presented to the Court of Appeal.
‘Having examined the material, in our judgment, the substantial risk of prejudice to national security and to the administration of justice without an order for an in-camera hearing to the extent ordered by the judge is unequivocally established. The in-camera order will enable A to be provided with material which may assist in the preparation of his defence, while simultaneously ensuring that the prosecution is not forced to discontinue the prosecution. ‘
President of the Queens Bench Division, Justice Openshaw, Sir Paul Kennedy
[2006] EWCA Crim 4, Times 19-Jan-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 1361
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78, Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 16.10(1) 67.2, Criminal Justice Act 1988 8159
England and Wales
Citedex parte Guardian Newspapers Ltd CACD 30-Sep-1998
The defendants purported to serve a notice under Rule 24A(1) of the Crown Court Rules 1982 of an intention to apply for a hearing in camera of their application that the trial be stopped as an abuse of process.
Held: Where an application was . .
CitedEkbatani v Sweden ECHR 26-May-1988
The defendant was convicted of threatening a civil servant. His appeal was dealt with without a hearing in the Court of Appeal. The Court confirmed the decision.
Held: Though the Court confirmed that if there had been a public hearing at first . .
CitedRegina v Beck ex parte The Daily Telegraph, Ex parte The Telegraph Plc 1992
. .
CitedRe Guardian Newspapers and Others CACD 20-Sep-1993
An appeal against an ‘in camera’ crown court order to the Court of Appeal is to be on paper submissions. The court set out the procedure on appeal against order for a trial to be held in camera. These rules were not ultra vires. Even though the . .
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court ex parte The Telegraph Plc CACD 1993
The court considered the effect of a jury trial in balancing pre-trial prejudicial publicity. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘In determining whether publication of matter would cause a substantial risk of prejudice to a future trial, a court should credit the . .
CitedRegina v Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others CACD 12-Jun-2001
When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order . .

Cited by:
CitedAl Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
CitedYam, Regina v CACD 28-Jan-2008
An order had been made for the trial of the defendant on a charge of murder to be held excluding both press and public. The Order had been made in the interests of national security and for the protection of the identity of a witness or other . .
CitedYam v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that since part of the trial had been in camera the result was unsafe.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court addressed submissions advanced on his behalf indicating how substantially . .
CitedYam v Attorney General Misc 27-Feb-2014
Central Criminal Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2021; Ref: scu.237590