Guardian News And Media Ltd v Incedal & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE GROSS
- MR JUSTICE BURNETT
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
- Constitutional Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar faced charges related to terrorism and false identity documents. An initial order mandated an in-camera trial and anonymity, citing national security. The media appealed. The court reviewed and modified the order, allowing parts of the trial to be open and refusing anonymization of the defendants. The decision balanced the principles of open justice with national security needs.
Judgment
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Gross:
INTRODUCTION
The Defendants, Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar (hitherto AB and CD), face the following charges:
Erol Incedal is charged with an offence contrary to s. 5, Terrorism Act 2006 (“TA 2006”, preparation of terrorist acts) and an offence contrary to s.58, Terrorism Act 2000 (“TA 2000”, collection of information).
Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar is charged with an offence contrary to s.58 TA 2000 (collection of information) and an offence contrary to s.4, Identity Documents Act 2010 (“IDA 2010”, possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention).
By order dated 19 th May, 2014 (“the order”), Nicol J ruled:
The entirety of the criminal trial of the Defendants should be in private (i.e., “in camera”, with the public and media excluded) and the publication of reports of the trial be prohibited.
The names and identities of the Defendants should be withheld from the public and publication of their names/identities in connection with the proceedings be prohibited.
The publication of reports of the hearing in open court on 19 th May, 2014 and the open judgment handed down on that day be postponed until the conclusion of the trial or further order.
The order was made by Nicol J pursuant to his common law powers, together with those contained in s.11 and s.4(2), Contempt of Court Act 1981 (“CCA 1981”).
Pursuant to s.159, Criminal Justice Act 1988 (“the CJA 1988”), the Applicants (for convenience, “the media”) sought leave to appeal from the order and contended that it should be set aside. We treated the hearing on the 4 th June as if it were the hearing of the substantive appeal and, in the course of the subsequent hearing on 12 th June (see below), formally gave leave. We make it plain that we did not treat the hearing as a review of the decision of Nicol J but have instead come to an independent conclusion on the material placed before us: see, Ex p Telegraph Group [2001] EWCA Crim 1075 ; [2001] 1 WLR 1983 , at [3].
So far as concerns the procedure followed, Nicol J was dealing with an application by the Crown that the trial should be held in private in its entirety and that the Defendants should be anonymous. That application was supported by Certificates (“the Certificates”), setting out the reasons relied on in support, signed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (“SSFCA”). Further material w