Publication of Defendants' Home Addresses
| Author | Jill Molloy |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2011.75.1.676 |
| Published date | 01 February 2011 |
| Date | 01 February 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Publication of Defendants’ Home Addresses
R (on the application of Harper) v Aldershot Magistrates’ Court [2010]
EWHC 1319 (Admin)
Keywords Home address; Anonymity; Contempt of court; Press;
Publication
H and J were two high-ranking police officers who had been involved in
the investigation and prosecution of serious crime, including conducting
covert operations. Both were charged with offences relating to improper
interference with prosecutions for speeding and a hearing was to be held
in the magistrates’ court to decide whether to send the matter to the
Crown Court for the purposes of s. 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998.
H and J applied to the magistrates’ court asking for the court to order
that their home addresses should not be published, fearing that doing so
could lead to attacks. H, in 1995 and when a junior police officer, had
been placed in the witness protection programme for 18 months and it
was suggested that this showed the potential risks that arose from the
type of work he did.
At first instance, the CPS did not oppose the application, but a
member of the press objected to the proposal. The legal adviser to the
magistrates, referring to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and
footnote 1–2440 of Stone’s Justice Manual, advised that details should be
withheld in rare circumstances only, which recognised that it was wrong
for the court to exert its power to restrict publication based on sympathy
rather than the administration of justice. The magistrates refused the
application and any reconsideration of their decision.
The police officers petitioned the High Court and Jack J imposed an
interlocutory injunction preventing the publication of the home ad-
dresses. At the substantive hearing for judicial review of the decision,
the claimants argued that there was additional material in the statement
of the Chief Superintendent which had not been taken into considera-
tion by the magistrates’ court, where the Chief Superintendent had
described a ‘real and genuine fear of reprisal’. The officers argued that
the publication of their names, ranks and work addresses would ensure
open justice was achieved.
Further, the claimants contended that there was a possibility that on
seeing the addresses, if published, ‘a spontaneous approach may be
made of a person of ill-will’ which would not have occurred in the
absence of such publication, and that the publication of officers’ home
addresses in criminal proceedings may deter police officers from doing
sensitive work as part of their duties.
The Press Association submitted that the principle of open justice
could only be limited in cases where the administration of justice would
8The Journal of Criminal Law (2011) 75 JCL 4–11
doi:10.1350/jcla.2011.75.1.676
To continue reading
Request your trial