Re H; Re D
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1999 |
| Date | 30 July 1999 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Before Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Forbes
Judicial review - lifting of reporting restrictions - decision amenable to review in Divisional Court
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in allowing an application for judicial review of the decision of Mr Justice Sachs, on July 28, 1999 to lift a reporting restriction imposed under section 39 of the 1933 Act.
The applicants were aged 15 and had been convicted for murder. At a plea and directions hearing prior to the trial, an order was made under section 39 prohibiting the publication of any material that would lead to their identification.
After conviction, representations were made to the trial judge by members of the press and subsequently counsel for the prosecution.
Mr Justice Sachs discharged the order but stayed the discharge only until the present hearing to challenge that decision, refusing to stay the discharge of that order until the determination of the applicants' appeal.
Ms Vera Baird and Mr Hugh Southey for H and D; Mr David Smith for Manchester Crown Court; Ms Lisa Judge for the Prosecution.
LORD JUSTICE ROSE said that it was now time for Parliament to introduce as a matter of urgency clarifying legislation which addressed the problems regarding section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, also its relationship with other legislation, section 39 of the 1933 Act and the provisions of section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
If Parliament considered the matter it should also consider the importance of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) (Cmnd 8969).
Section 29(3) of the 1981 Act had been addressed by the House of Lords four times in a decade: see In re SmalleyELRWLR ([1985] 1 AC 622); In re Sampson ([1987] 1 WLR 194), In re AshtonELR ([1994] 1 AC 9) and R v Manchester Crown Court, Ex parte DPPWLR ([1993] 1 WLR 1524).
Reference was also made to R v Leicester Crown Court, Ex parte SWLR([1993] 1 WLR 111) and R v Central Criminal Court, Ex parte Simpkins; R v Same, Ex parte PlummerTLR (The Times October 26, 1998).
His Lordship said that the crucial question was whether Mr Justice Sullivan's analysis in R v Harrow Crown Court, Ex Parte Perkins; R v Cardiff Crown Court, Ex parte MTLR (The Times April 28, 1998) with which Lord Justice Rose had agreed, was correct or whether the decision inR v Winchester Crown Court, Ex parte BWLR ([1999] 1 WLR 788) was the preferred...
To continue reading
Request your trial