The Court of Appeal has dismissed five media companies’ challenge to a Circuit Court decision refusing to lift reporting restrictions on a criminal sentencing hearing. The appeal concerned an application to remove the restrictions in relation to one respondent; the court did not decide that the restrictions had a lawful basis after the sentencing hearing.
The restrictions covered the proceedings involving three accused. The respondent had pleaded guilty to sexual assault and two attempted defilement charges. On 31 October 2014, he received a two-year prison sentence suspended for three years. The restrictions had been continued at an earlier hearing and were not revisited at sentencing. Newspapers later published the respondent’s name and details of his conviction and sentence.
In July 2015, the media companies asked the Circuit Court to lift the restrictions in relation to the respondent. Judge Ring refused, principally because the two co-accused had not been notified and could be affected by any change. The companies then sought judicial review.
The High Court found that the restrictions had been lawfully imposed through the sentencing hearing on 21 July 2014, but had no lawful basis after 31 October 2014. It nevertheless refused judicial review, citing the time taken to bring the application, the possible effect on the co-accused, and other discretionary considerations. The media companies appealed the refusal of relief. The respondent did not appeal the High Court’s conclusion about the restrictions after 31 October.
The Court of Appeal rejected the High Court’s view that the judicial review was time-barred: it had been brought within three months of the Circuit Court’s July 2015 decision. It also held that delay alone did not justify keeping an otherwise unlawful restriction in place without strong, causally connected prejudice arising from the delay.
But the appeal still failed. The Court of Appeal said the media companies had not established that lifting restrictions for the respondent could be done without affecting the co-accused, whose right to be heard was engaged. The companies had also not provided enough evidence about whether reporting could identify the complainant or her current position. The court therefore refused both certiorari and the requested declaration. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the restrictions in force.
The court said the companies could return to the Circuit Court with an application on notice to all potentially affected parties, where the complainant’s rights could also be considered. It noted that the High Court’s finding that the restrictions lacked a lawful basis after 31 October 2014 had not been appealed, and that delay alone should not preclude a later application.