Regina v Reigate Justices ex parte Argus Newspapers and Larcombe: 1983

The court considered an application by the defendant, a ‘supergrass’ for his trial to be held in camera.
Held: Such an order was possible but should only be made if it was the only way of protecting the defendant.
(1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 181
Cited by:
CitedIn re Officer L HL 31-Jul-2007
Police officers appealed against refusal of orders protecting their anonymity when called to appear before the Robert Hamill Inquiry.
Held: ‘The tribunal accordingly approached the matter properly under article 2 in seeking to ascertain . .
[2007] UKHL 36, Times 01-Aug-07, [2007] 1 WLR 2135, [2007] 4 All ER 965, 151 Sol Jo 1061, [2007] All ER (D) 484
CitedTimes Newspapers Ltd and others v Regina and others CMAC 24-Oct-2008
Anonymity not to be by secret trial
The newspaper appealed against an order for the defendant soldiers’ trial to be held in camera.
Held: Section 94(2) could not be used to provide anonymity. The court relied on its common law powers under which: ‘for us to be entitled to make . .
[2008] EWCA Crim 2396, [2009] 1 WLR 1015
CitedTimes Newspapers Ltd and others v Soldier B CACD 24-Oct-2008
(Court’s Martial Appeal Court) The newspaper appealed against an order under section 94 of the 1955 Act restricting the identification of the defendants. The judge had said there would be a threat to both the safety of the defendants and as to the . .
[2008] EWCA Crim 2559

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.277160