The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but not his name.
Held: The claim should be struck out. The existing articles complained of were not in contempt in that they had not infringed the orders made and had not mentioned the SOPO order. The claim was procedurally flawed, was hopeless in any event, because no basis for an anonymity order is justified on the particular facts of this case, and the recent clear breach of the SOPO by the claimant, was a third reason why the claim must be struck out.
Judges:
Coulson J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 406 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd v Birmingham City Council QBD 12-Nov-1993
The name of a person with a notifiable disease could be withheld pending an appeal, but any anonymity given by court to party must end when it would not be needed for the purposes of justice. The power to make an order under s.11 must be exercised . .
Cited – MGN Pension Trustees Ltd v Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association Etc ChD 15-Dec-1994
There should be no refusal to allow reporting of civil proceedings where criminal proceedings were not likely to be prejudiced. The critical question in relation to section 4(2) is whether there is a substantial risk of prejudice to the . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd QBD 31-Aug-1998
The questions asked of a court when staying a criminal trial because of newspaper reporting, and when assessing a contempt of court, are different, and the stay of a trial need have no implication that a contempt has been committed. The strict . .
Cited – Regina v Arundel Justices, Ex parte Westminster Press Ltd 1985
The basic rule is that anything said in open court may be reported. Withholding the name from the public during the proceedings will provide the basis for the making of an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. . .
Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 31-Jan-2011
Principles on Request for Anonymity Order
The defendant appealed against an order granting the anonymisation of the proceeedings.
Held: The critical question is whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of proceedings which identifies a party by name, . .
Cited – Gray v UVW QBD 21-Oct-2010
Application was made for the name of the defendant not to be published.
Held: To the extent that a claimant seeks an order for the anonymisation of any reports of the SOPO proceedings, then that jurisdiction derives from section 6(1) of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.430253