*/
The Court of Appeal has held that although “open justice is both a fundamental principle of the common law and a means of ensuring public confidence in our legal system”, open justice must “give way to the yet more fundamental principle that the paramount object of the court is to do justice”.
Lord Justice Gross in Guardian News and Media Ltd v AB CD held that there was a “significant risk” that the administration of justice would be frustrated if the trial of the two defendants was conducted in open court.
They therefore held that “the core of the trial must be heard in camera” but that the following could take place in open court: swearing in of the jury, reading the charges to the jury, at least part of the judge’s introductory remarks to the jury, at least part of the prosecution opening, the verdicts and (subject to further argument) sentencing if any convictions resulted. “It is important to underline that a defendant’s rights are unchanged whether a criminal trial is heard in open court or in cameraand whether or not the proceedings may be reported by the media.”
A small group of “accredited journalists” may attend, drawn from the media parties to the proceedings. Notes can be made but must be stored securely until the end of the trial, a transcript of the proceedings (excluding the discrete ex parte areas) will be available for review at the conclusion of the proceedings in connection with any further consideration of publication and a “tailor made” order should be made.
Allowing the media’s appeal against the anonymisation of the defendants, Gross LJ said: “We express grave concern as to the cumulative effects of holding a criminal trial in camera and anonymising the defendants. We find it difficult to conceive of a situation where both departures from open justice will be justified.”
Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for human rights organisation Liberty, said: “The judges are clear that open justice is a priceless foundation of our system and faced with a blacked-out trial we now have a few vital chinks of light.“But their wholesale deference to vague and secret ministerial ‘national security’ claims is worrying. Shutting the door on the core of a criminal trial is a dangerous departure from our democratic tradition.”
The trial of Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, who are charged with terrorist offences, was due to start on 16 June at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey.
They therefore held that “the core of the trial must be heard in camera” but that the following could take place in open court: swearing in of the jury, reading the charges to the jury, at least part of the judge’s introductory remarks to the jury, at least part of the prosecution opening, the verdicts and (subject to further argument) sentencing if any convictions resulted. “It is important to underline that a defendant’s rights are unchanged whether a criminal trial is heard in open court or in cameraand whether or not the proceedings may be reported by the media.”
A small group of “accredited journalists” may attend, drawn from the media parties to the proceedings. Notes can be made but must be stored securely until the end of the trial, a transcript of the proceedings (excluding the discrete ex parte areas) will be available for review at the conclusion of the proceedings in connection with any further consideration of publication and a “tailor made” order should be made.
Allowing the media’s appeal against the anonymisation of the defendants, Gross LJ said: “We express grave concern as to the cumulative effects of holding a criminal trial in camera and anonymising the defendants. We find it difficult to conceive of a situation where both departures from open justice will be justified.”
Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for human rights organisation Liberty, said: “The judges are clear that open justice is a priceless foundation of our system and faced with a blacked-out trial we now have a few vital chinks of light.“But their wholesale deference to vague and secret ministerial ‘national security’ claims is worrying. Shutting the door on the core of a criminal trial is a dangerous departure from our democratic tradition.”
The trial of Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, who are charged with terrorist offences, was due to start on 16 June at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey.
The Court of Appeal has held that although “open justice is both a fundamental principle of the common law and a means of ensuring public confidence in our legal system”, open justice must “give way to the yet more fundamental principle that the paramount object of the court is to do justice”.
Lord Justice Gross in Guardian News and Media Ltd v AB CD held that there was a “significant risk” that the administration of justice would be frustrated if the trial of the two defendants was conducted in open court.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
Why were some Caribbean nations given such dramatically different constitutional frameworks when they gained independence from the UK? Dr Leonardo Raznovich examines the controversial savings clause
