R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Castelliand Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1995 |
| Date | 31 July 1995 |
| Year | 1996 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Latham, J
Judicial review – power of High Court to grant anonymity to persons before the court – procedure to be followed where anonymity is to be granted – s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
(1) The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to allow a name or other identifying matter to be withheld from the public, and therefore a court which exercises this jurisdiction also has power, under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, to give directions prohibiting the publication of such material. However, before exercising this jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied that a failure to do so would render the attainment of justice really doubtful, or, in effect, impracticable. More particularly, the jurisdiction does not exist for the protection of privacy or the prevention of embarrassment, such as may arise from the disclosure that a person is HIV positive.
(2) For the purposes of the exercise of the jurisdiction to allow a name or other identifying matter to be withheld from the public in the context of an application for judicial review, an application for leave and the subsequent substantive application are probably two separate sets of proceedings. Therefore (a) no order made under s 11 of the 1981 Act at the substantive hearing can relate back to the leave stage; and (b) any publicity which has already occurred in relation to the leave stage will render ineffectual any order which can be made at the substantive stage.
(3) Even if the application for leave and the substantive application are properly to be regarded as one proceeding, it will nevertheless be wholly inappropriate to exercise the s 11 power at the substantive stage in a case where significant publicity has already occurred at the leave stage.
(4) In a case where the mere fact of the applicant's name being published in the cause list, or appearing in the notice of application, will not of itself create any risk of publicity before the hearing of the application for leave, an application for anonymity and an associated s 11 order can be made at the same time as the application for leave.
(5) In a case where the mere fact of the applicant's name being published in the cause list, or appearing in the notice of application, will of itself create a risk of publicity before the hearing of the application for leave, an application for anonymity and an associated s 11 order may need to be made as soon as the papers supporting the application for judicial review are lodged, in which case the applicant should not lodge the papers until he has ensured by inquiry at the Crown Office that the application can be dealt with immediately.
Statutory provisions referred to:Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 11.
RSC Ord 63, r 4.
Cases referred to in judgment:Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine [1979] AC 441.
Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd v Birmingham City Council (1994) 158 LG Rev 523.
H v Ministry of Defence [1991] 2 All ER 834.
R v Criminal Injuries Board, ex parte A [1992] COD 378.
R v Socialist Worker, ex parte Attorney-General [1975] 1 QB 637.
Scott v Scott [1918] AC 417.
Applications for orders under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Jan Luba for the applicants.
Simon Mehigan for the Daily Mail.
Ian Burnett as amicus curiae.
MR JUSTICE LATHAM.On 27 July 1995, I refused applications made by the applicants in these two motions for judicial review in which each sought orders that the matters be listed in the cause list by reference only to their initials, that their names addresses should not be referred to in the course of the substantive hearing, and that orders be made pursuant to s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 preventing publication of their names, addresses or photographs.
In the substantive proceedings, each applicant challenges a decision by the respondents to the effect that although each applicant is unintentionally homeless and in priority need, the respondents, as housing authority, nonetheless owed no duty to house them pursuant to the provisions of the Housing Act. Leave to move was granted to Mr Castelli at an oral hearing on 23 May 1995 and to Mr Tristan-Garcia at an oral hearing on 21 July 1995. Their applications were listed in the normal way, using their full names. In each case the documents, in particular the Form 86A, contained the information that the applicant is HIV positive. As I understand it, this is the basis of each applicant's claim to the respondents to be in priority need. Hearings of the substantive motions were expedited to 28 July 1995 and, as I understand it, are now part heard until September.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A and Others v HM Treasury (Application by Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others)
...[1988] QB 553, 562; In re Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd’s Application [1997] NI 309; R v Westminster City Council, Ex p Castelli [1996] 1 FLR 534, 538; R v Arundel Justices, Ex p Westminster Press Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 708; R v Z [2005] 2 AC 467, para 2 and In re Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] 1......
-
R v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Kaim Todner (A Firm)
...... [1979] AC 440 Mr Lawson referred to R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Castelli [1995] 7 Admin. LR 840 . ... and involve serious allegations being made against another party who has no notice of those allegations, the interests ......