Khuja (formerly known as PNM) v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Sumption,Lord Neuberger,Lady Hale,Lord Clarke,Lord Reed,Lord Kerr,Lord Wilson |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKSC 49 |
| Date | 19 July 2017 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
(formerly known as)
[2017] UKSC 49
Lord Neuberger, President
Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Kerr
Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Appellant
Manuel Barca QC
Miss Hannah Ready
(Instructed by Collyer Bristow LLP)
Respondents (1 and 2)
Gavin Millar QC
Adam Wolanski
(Instructed by Times Newspapers Limited Legal Department)
Respondent (3 and 4)
Gavin Millar QC
Adam Wolanski
(Instructed by Newquest Media Group Ltd Legal Department)
(1) Times Newspapers Limited
(2) Andrew Norfolk
(3) Newquest (Oxfordshire & Wiltshire) Ltd
(4) Ben Wilkinson
Heard on 17 and 18 January 2017
( with whomLord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord ClarkeandLord Reedagree)
For some years The Times and other media organisations have taken a close interest in investigating and reporting on allegations that the police and child protection authorities have failed adequately to confront a pattern of crime involving the sexual exploitation of vulnerable young teenage girls by older men. It need hardly be said that this is a subject of serious public concern. It has given rise to a number of government-ordered national inquiries, a review of standards of protection in children's homes, and substantial changes in the procedures of the police and prosecuting authorities for handling such cases. There have also been a number of prosecutions.
This appeal arises out of the trial of nine men on exceptionally serious charges involving organised child sex grooming and child prostitution in the Oxford area over a period of eight years. The men were arrested in March 2012 by Thames Valley Police after a long-running investigation known as "Operation Bullfinch". They were tried before His Honour Judge Rook QC at the Central Criminal Court between 7 January and 14 May 2013 on an indictment charging rape and conspiracy to rape children, trafficking and child prostitution. On 14 May 2013, seven of them were convicted. The trial attracted considerable publicity in the national and local press and in the broadcast media. Public interest in it was accentuated and prolonged by the perception that the victims of the men convicted had not originally been taken seriously by the police or Oxfordshire social services, and had not received the protection to which they were entitled.
The appellant, who has been referred to in these proceedings as PNM, is a prominent figure in the Oxford area. He was arrested at about the same time as the nine and was released on bail on terms (among others) that he surrender his passport. The reason for his arrest was that one of the complainants had told the police that she had been abused by a man with the same, very common, first name. However, she failed to pick him out at an identity parade. He was later told by the police that he would be released from arrest without charge but that the case would be kept under review. That remains the position. Police investigations are continuing, but PNM has never been charged with any offence, and there is no present reason to believe that he ever will be.
The question at issue on this appeal is whether an injunction should issue to prevent The Times and the Oxford Mail from publishing information identifying PNM as someone who had been arrested, bailed, his passport impounded and then de-arrested in connection with Operation Bullfinch, or as someone suspected by the police of being involved in sexual offences against children. The position of the two newspapers is that they wish to publish this information, identifying PNM, but that what they publish about these matters will be confined to material derived from the proceedings at the trial.
An injunction was originally granted under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, at a preliminary hearing before the magistrates shortly after PNM's arrest. Section 4(2) empowers the court in any legal proceedings held in public
"… where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose."
The magistrates' order prohibited the disclosure of any information which might identify PNM as the subject of pending criminal proceedings until such time as he was charged with an offence.
At the trial, evidence was given of the exploitation of six girls who at the relevant time were aged between 11 and 15. One of the girls was the complainant whose statements to the police had led to PNM's arrest. On 25 January 2013, immediately before she was due to give her evidence, PNM applied for a further order under section 4(2). At that time, he was still on bail. His application was heard in open court, and in the course of it the fact of PNM's arrest and the serious offences of which he was suspected were discussed. The prosecution agreed that it was inevitable that the complainant would refer to PNM in the course of her evidence. The judge made an order postponing publication of any information which might identify him as the person referred to by that complainant, on the ground that there was a significant risk that his right to a fair trial might be prejudiced. On 4 February 2013, after the complainant had finished giving her evidence, Judge Rook varied the order of 25 January so as to prohibit the publication of any report which referred to evidence which might identify or tend to identify PNM until a decision had been made whether or not to charge him.
A significant part of the relevant complainant's evidence related to her abuse by a man, whom I shall call X, with the same first name as PNM. In her evidence in chief, she said that when she was 13 years-old she had been taken on a number of occasions over a period of about six months by one or other of the defendants to a flat, where she had had sex with X. She only ever referred to him by his first name and does not appear to have known his surname. She gave a detailed description of him. She referred to the identity parade but said that she did not recognise X and did not think that he was there. These matters also arose several times in the course of her cross-examination by counsel for the various defendants. Subsequently, PNM was referred to on a number of occasions. A police officer gave evidence that PNM had participated in an identity parade but had not been identified. There was also evidence referring to PNM's involvement by at least one of the defendants. In their closing speeches, both prosecuting and defence counsel referred to the alleged involvement of X on the footing that the complainant had been referring to PNM, identifying him by his full name.
In In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] 2 AC 697, para 66, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, speaking of the publication of the names of defendants in advance of criminal trials, observed:
"In allowing this, the law proceeds on the basis that most members of the public understand that, even when charged with an offence, you are innocent unless and until proved guilty in a court of law. That understanding can be expected to apply, a fortiori, if you are someone whom the prosecuting authorities are not even in a position to charge with an offence and bring to court."
The law must of course take the presumption of innocence as its starting point, and experience suggests that as a general rule the public understand that there is a difference between allegation and proof. But Lord Rodger's observation cannot be treated as a legal presumption, let alone a conclusive one. The conclusions that the public may draw from evidence and submissions at a criminal trial in open court will differ from case to case, depending on, among other things, the gravity of the allegations, the character of the evidence and the extent of the publicity surrounding the trial. It would be foolish for any court to ignore the extreme sensitivity of public opinion in current circumstances to allegations of the sexual abuse of children and the concerns about the safety of children generally to which those allegations give rise. I have summarised in general terms in para 7 above the way in which the involvement of X and PNM were treated at the trial at the Central Criminal Court. In my opinion, the present appeal must be approached on the footing that there is a real risk that a person knowing of these matters would conclude that PNM had sexually abused the complainant notwithstanding that he had never been charged with any offence.
There were three applications to Judge Rook to lift the section 4(2) order. The first two were made by The Times on 8 and 15 May 2013, towards the end of the trial. On 16 May 2013, the judge declined to lift the order. Some of the matters relating to X which had been raised at the trial were referred to in open court during these applications. The judge's ruling, which was itself subject to his section 4(2) order, also referred to them.
The situation changed on 25 July 2013, when the police notified PNM that he would be released from arrest without charge, but that the case would be kept under review. In the light of the police's letter, on 25 September 2013, The Times and the Oxford Mail applied again to Judge Rook on the ground that there were now no "pending or imminent" proceedings against PNM which could be prejudiced by publication. On 14 October 2013 the Judge circulated a draft ruling stating that he proposed to lift the order. But he never formally did so,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake v Geoffrey William Guy
...be a reference to the judgment of Lord Sumption (with whom the majority of the court agreed) in the case of Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] AC 161, where he said: “21. In Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457, the House of Lords expanded the scope of the equitable action for breach of con......
-
EGC v PGF NHS Trust
...objective foundation for the claim which is being made.” [39] The same point was made by Lord Sumption in Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] AC 161: [29] In most of the recent decisions of this court the question has arisen whether the open justice principle may be satisfied without advers......
-
Sherman Estate v. Donovan,
...Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332; Khuja v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2017] UKSC 49, [2019] A.C. 161; Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S......
-
La Presse inc. v. Quebec, 2023 SCC 22
...Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, 2010 SCC 21, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 721; Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25; Khuja v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2017] UKSC 49, [2019] A.C. 161; Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; R. v. Chouhan, 2021 SCC 26; R. v. Sherratt, [1991]......
-
REVISITING THE LAW OF CONFIDENCE IN SINGAPORE AND A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TORT OF MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
...Investigations Alleged against Persons of Public Prominence” (31 October 2016) at para 1.67 – as cited in Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] AC 161 at [51]. In other words, harm in the form of emotional and psychological damage. 176 See A v B plc [2002] EWCA Civ 337; [2003] QB 195 at [11(x......
-
Publication Bans
... Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp , [1994] 3 SCR 835 United Kingdom Khuja (formerly known as PNM) v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors , [2017] UKSC 49, [2017] 3 WLR 351, [2017] EMLR 29, [2017] WLR(D) 490, [2017] WLR(D) 673 A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) , [2014] UKSC 25,......
-
Table of Cases
.................................... 131, 154, 288, 313, 315, 322, 402, 403, 480 Khuja (formerly known as PNM) v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors, [2017] UKSC 49, [2017] 3 WLR 351, [2017] EMLR 29, [2017] WLR(D) 490, [2017] WLR(D) 673 ........................................................................
-
OPEN JUSTICE, 'BACK-TO-BACK' TRIALS AND JUROR PREJUDICE: EXAMINING THE SUPPRESSION ORDER IN THE TRIAL OF GEORGE PELL.
...(A-G) [1989] 2 SCR 1326, 1339-40 (Cory J for Dickson CJ, Lamer and Cory JJ). (53) Ibid. (54) See, eg, Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] AC 161, 176-7 [16] (Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Neuberger PSC, Baroness Hale DPSC, Lords Clarke and Reed JJSC agreeing); A v British Broadcasting Corporation......