The King (Glaister and Carr) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales

Hearing dates: 18.3.25

Further evidence: 25.3.25

Draft judgment: 14.4.25

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 30 April 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

This judgment has at its heart a vital distinction between a Court Embargo and a Journalism Embargo: see §§14–20 below. The judgment is the product of a dual enquiry by the Court into what happened after a Confidential Embargoed Draft Judgment (“CEDJ”) was circulated to the parties; into why it matters; and into what the Court should do about it. Within this judgment, I record findings of shortcomings and breaches of the terms of the Court Embargo: §§8–9 below.

This had been a judicial review case. Two of the parties were the Leonard Family represented by Fieldfisher with Mr Richmond KC as Lead Counsel; and the Scout Association (“TSA”) represented by Kennedys with Jamas Hodivala KC as Lead Counsel. I record that I have found no breach or shortcoming by any member of the Leonard Family; nor by anyone at TSA or Kennedys; nor by any other party or lawyer. The only breaches and shortcomings are within Fieldfisher.

From the Court's end of things, this is what happened.

i) The CEDJ was circulated by my clerk on 20.1.25 at 10:23. Hand-down of the finalised judgment was scheduled for 30.1.25 at 10:00.

ii) On 29.1.25 at 13:27 my clerk received an email from Mr Hodivala KC, saying that an individual at TSA had been approached for comment by a journalist who appeared to have a copy of the CEDJ. An attached email from a BBC journalist to TSA (29.1.25 at 12:46) said “I have had a draft embargoed copy ahead of its official publication”. I was also shown an earlier email to TSA from a Guardian journalist (12:59 on 28.1.25) which said “I hear judgment is going to be handed down on Thursday”. That earlier email had not been taken by Kennedys to indicate receipt of the CEDJ or knowledge of the outcome.

iii) The Court responded. I alerted all legal representatives (29.1.25 at 13:56), sharing the emails. I invited, and received, observations as to next steps. On my behalf, the BBC journalist was contacted by the Judicial Press Office (29.1.25 at 15:02) and by Kennedys (at 16:07): see §26 below.

iv) At 15:31, Jill Greenfield of Fieldfisher emailed to say that “a breach has been identified within Fieldfisher”. On 30.1.24 at 00:23 Mr Richmond KC emailed with further information: that “the source of the breach of the embargo” was Nicola Pearson, “a Publicity and Media Manager at Fieldfisher”; that “upon discovering the breach” Ms Greenfield had taken “urgent action” and “immediately instructed Ms Pearson” to “name each of the individuals who had been sent the judgment”, to “contact each of them to notify them of the embargo” and to require them “to return” the CEDJ; that Ms Pearson “has complied” with those instructions; and that copies of the CEDJ “have been returned.”

v) The finalised judgment was duly handed-down on 30.1.25 at 10:00. It is [2025] EWHC 167 (Admin).

It was in these circumstances that the Court decided to undertake an enquiry. In doing so, it was important to pause, take time, and allow time. Those involved, and those parties not involved, had time to consider the nature of their participation. Legal representation was secured. Materials were provided. I convened a one-day oral hearing. There was no oral evidence. Fieldfisher provided a candid and comprehensive bundle of all relevant contemporaneous documents including email traffic and call logs. There are witness statements from the firm's general counsel (Andrew Dodd), the partner with conduct of the case (Ms Greenfield) and the head of media and marketing (Ms Pearson). Helen Evans KC and Melody Hadfield appeared for Fieldfisher, Ms Greenfield and Mr Dodd. David Halpern KC (instructed by DAC Beachcroft) appeared for Nicola Pearson. Ben Smiley (instructed by Clyde & Co) appeared by written submissions for members of the Leonard family. I also had witness statements from Jackie, Dave and Tom Leonard.

Dual Enquiry

I have used the phrase “dual enquiry”. That is because, as all Counsel agree, the Court has had two overlapping functions to perform. One function is to enquire into the facts and circumstances, to decide whether there have been any breach or breaches of the Court Embargo, with what nature and in what circumstances. That enquiry can properly result in what Ms Evans KC and Ms Hadfield called a “narrative judgment making clear what has gone wrong”. The Court's second function involves asking the questions posed by CPR 81.6(1): (i) whether “a contempt of court may have been committed”; and if so (ii) whether to proceed against the individual or individuals concerned in contempt proceedings. If the Court proceeds, it issues a summons ( CPR 81.6(3)). An alternative course is to refer the case to the Attorney General or Solicitor General.

The Position of the Media

This judgment follows an enquiry relating to, and admissions made by, Fieldfisher, Andrew Dodd, Jill Greenfield and Nicola Pearson. It does not make any finding against any other person. That includes any journalist or media individual named in this judgment. It would not be fair to treat this judgment, or any part of it, as constituting or evidencing findings against any such person. They were not party to these proceedings. They were not heard by the Court.

The Duty Immediately to Report a Breach to the Court

Fieldfisher, through Ms Evans KC and Ms Hadfield, have rightly acknowledged “the reporting duties owed to the Court” by solicitors (and barristers), in circumstances where any breach of the Court Embargo comes to light. As they acknowledge, that includes a breach which comes to light internally. This is an aspect of the higher calling (§25i below). Counsel helpfully identified authorities addressing this point. In Optis Cellular Technology Inc v Apple Retail UK Ltd [2021] EWHC 2694 (Pat) the Court recorded (at §19) that it is an essential obligation of a recipient of a CEDJ who believes there has been a breach of the Court Embargo to “find out what happened with care, urgency and rigour” and to “make clear and complete disclosure to the court and the opposing party”. In Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet [2022] EWCA Civ 368, Carr LJ recorded (at §10vi) that a solicitor who had become aware of a breach of the Court Embargo “now appreciated that he should have brought the incident to the court's attention at this stage but did not recognise this at the time”. She emphasised (at §18iii) that:

All recipients [of a CEDJ] need to understand clearly … Any breach of an embargo must be drawn to the court's attention as soon as it is identified .

This was repeated in Match Group LLC v Muzmatch [2022] EWHC 1023 (IPEC) at §39.

Shortcomings

I start by identifying shortcomings. These did not constitute embargo breaches. But they are the context in which embargo breaches took place.

i) By way of context, I record that Ms Greenfield is an experienced solicitor but her practice has not tended to encounter CEDJs; that she clearly and correctly told the Leonard Family that they could not discuss the judgment or outcome with anyone (20.1.25 at 18:15); that she gave a verbal explanation along these same lines to Ms Pearson (24.1.25 at 11:20); and that upon learning that the CEDJ had been sent to Steve Morris at the Guardian she reached out to Mr Dodd promptly for his guidance (28.1.25 at 11:01). Nevertheless, there were – in my judgment – the following shortcomings on the part of Ms Greenfield. First, on and after receiving the CEDJ from the Court (20.1.25 at 10:23), Ms Greenfield did not ensure that she fully understood the Court Embargo. That meant she was not aware that internal marketing-preparations were impermissible. It also meant she was “not sure what the rules are” (27.1.25 at 12:06) regarding “embargoed” disclosure to journalists. Secondly, when emailing the CEDJ to Ms Pearson (27.1.25 at 11:59), Ms Greenfield did not give clear written instructions, notwithstanding that Ms Pearson is a non-lawyer whose roles within the firm included external-facing media and marketing roles. Thirdly, Ms Greenfield did not step in and stop Ms Pearson's communicated plans to send the CEDJ to journalists (from 27.1.25 at 12:04); to send quotes to journalists (from 27.1.25 at 14:34); and to carry out internal marketing-preparation steps (from 27.1.25 at 17:16).

ii) By way of context, I record that Ms Pearson is a non-lawyer whose roles within the firm included external-facing media and marketing roles; and that she communicated to Ms Greenfield her plans to send the CEDJ to journalists (from 27.1.25 at 12:04); to send quotes to journalists (from 27.1.25 at 14:34); and to carry out internal marketing-preparation steps (from 27.1.25 at 17:16). Nevertheless, there were – in my judgment – the following shortcomings on the part of Ms Pearson. First, having received a verbal explanation (24.1.25 at 11:20) and then the CEDJ from Ms Greenfield (27.1.25 at 11:59), Ms Pearson did not read the Court Embargo; nor did she ask anyone for help in understanding...