R A’s Application and In the matter of a decision by a District Judge
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIQB 27 |
| Date | 26 February 2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Ref:
COG7719
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NIQB 27
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
26/2/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
R A’s Application [2010] NIQB 27
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY R A FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW
-and-
IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE
DELIVERED ON 8 MAY 2009
_________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ and Weatherup J
________
COGHLIN LJ
[1] This is the judgment of the Court.
[2] The applicant in this case, RA, seeks an order of Certiorari to quash a
decision by District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) White refusing to extend a
reporting restriction order under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act
1981 in relation to the publication of the applicant’s name in connection with
a charge of withholding information relating to the murder of Constable
Stephen Carroll in Craigavon on 9 March 2009 contrary to Section 5(1) of the
Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
[3] For the purposes of this application the applicant was represented by
Ms Karen Quinlivan while Mr Tony McGleenan appeared on behalf of the
respondent and Mr John Larkin QC represented the British Broadcasting
Corporation, the intervening party. We are grateful to all counsel involved
for their well researched and carefully constructed written and oral
submissions.
2
[4] At the commencement of the hearing Ms Quinlivan applied for leave
to amend the relief sought in the Order 53 statement to include breaches of
the applicant’s rights in accordance with Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). The court refused leave
upon the ground no such alleged breaches had been referred to or argued
before the District Judge.
Background facts
[5] The applicant is a 22 year old male who was arrested on 15 March 2009
under the provisions of Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to the
murder of Constable Carroll. On 25 March 2009 he was charged with the
offence of withholding information.
[6] On the morning of 26 March 2009 the Irish News newspaper published
an article relating to the police inquiry into the murder of Constable Carroll in
the course of which the applicant’s full name was published. The applicant’s
first appearance before Lisburn Magistrates’ Court took place on that
morning. His name appeared on the court list and was referred to in open
court. At that hearing the applicant’s legal representative applied to the court
for an order pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (“the
1981 Act”) postponing the publication of any facts which might lead to the
identification of the applicant, the dates contained in the charge and the
details of the application for postponement under Section 4(2) until the next
remand hearing on 17 April 2009. The District Judge acceded to that
application and the applicant was remanded in custody.
[7] It appears that on 31 March 2009 the applicant’s legal advisers learned
that the Irish News proposed to publish a further article about the applicant,
inter alia, linking him to graffiti that had appeared in the Lurgan/Craigavon
area. The applicant’s legal advisers then applied to the Queen’s Bench
Division of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland for an injunction
prohibiting such publication. On 31 March 2009 Stephens J granted an
interim injunction, which was subsequently converted into a final order on 15
May 2009, prohibiting anyone from identifying the plaintiff as the person
charged on 25 March 2009 with withholding information or linking him to the
graffiti or in any way identifying him in connection with the criminal
proceedings until seven days after the conclusion of those proceedings or
further order in the meantime.
[8] On 2 April 2009 members of the PSNI attended the applicant at Her
Majesty’s Prison Maghaberry and issued him with a “PM1” notice advising
him that he “might be the target of CIRA (Continuity Irish Republican Army)
activity should he be released on bail”.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Townsend (Callum) v Google Inc. and Google UK Limited
...such a proposition Google Inc. rely on the judgment of Coghlin LJ delivering the judgment of the Divisional Court in R A’s Application [2010] NIQB 27 at paragraphs [15] – [16] and the cases cited in those paragraphs. One of the cases cited was in Re Trinity Mirror Plc [2008] EWCA Crim. 50 i......
-
NGK v GOOGLE INC and GOOGLE UK LIMITED
...such a proposition Google Inc. rely on the judgment of Coghlin LJ delivering the judgment of the Divisional Court in R A’s Application [2010] NIQB 27 17 at paragraphs [15] – [16] and the cases cited in those paragraphs. One of the cases cited was in Re Trinity Mirror Plc [2008] EWCA Crim. 5......
-
CVB v MGN Ltd
...risk to a claimant who does not apply for an anonymity order before issuing proceedings is given in the case of RA, Re Judicial Review [2010] NIQB 27. In that case the ground given by the court for refusing anonymity was that the applicant's name had been disclosed earlier in the proceeding......