The High Court refused five publishers’ application to overturn a Circuit Court judge’s refusal to lift reporting restrictions in a criminal case involving a now adult respondent who had been a minor when the offences were committed. Mr Justice McDermott held that the restrictions were lawful through sentencing on 31 October 2014 but should not have continued after that date. He declined to grant judicial review relief because the publishers applied too late and because of the circumstances in which they sought it.
The respondent had pleaded guilty in February 2014 to one count of sexual assault and two counts of attempted defilement of a child. The offences were committed when he was about 16; the injured party was under 15. The respondent said he believed she was older and maintained the events were consensual. The pleas were entered on the basis that, because of her age, consent was legally impossible. The court imposed a two-year prison sentence, suspended for three years, on 31 October 2014.
A Circuit Court order made in July 2014 continued reporting restrictions while the judge considered the facts, ages and risk that publication might identify the complainant. The publishers later reported the respondent’s identity and details of the proceedings. The judgment records that some published accounts alleged more serious offences than those to which he had pleaded guilty. The respondent brought defamation proceedings against the publishers, alleging false reporting and breach of the restrictions.
The High Court concluded that the Children Act’s anonymity protection for children did not extend to the respondent after he turned 18 during the proceedings. It also found that the reporting restrictions were lawfully continued up to sentencing, including to protect the complainant’s identity. But there was no evidence that keeping the respondent’s identity secret after conviction and sentence was necessary to protect the complainant, and no fair-trial basis remained once the criminal case had ended. The order should not have continued beyond 31 October.
That conclusion did not erase the order’s effect at the time of publication. The court said the publishers’ articles on 31 October and 1 November breached an order then in force. It stressed that parties must obey court orders unless they are set aside, even where they consider an order improper.
The publishers sought certiorari of the Circuit Court’s July 2015 refusal to lift the restriction and a declaration concerning its continuation after sentencing. The High Court said the declaration was out of time because it would indirectly challenge earlier orders. It also upheld the Circuit Court judge’s discretion to refuse relief: the publishers had not promptly sought clarification or a lifting of the order, and changing it could affect two co-accused who had not been notified. The High Court refused the relief sought.