|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> A & Ors, R v  EWCA Crim 4 (13 January 2006)
Cite as:  1 WLR 1361,  EWCA Crim 04,  EWCA Crim 4,  WLR 1361
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  1 WLR 1361] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THE HON. SIR MICHAEL ASTILL
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
THE HON. MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
THE RT HON. SIR PAUL KENNEDY
|- v -
|The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court Ex parte A
Times Newspapers Ltd
Guardian Newspapers Ltd
British Broadcasting Corporation
Mr David Waters QC, Mr M. Heywood and Mr D. Atkinson for the Crown
Mr Keir Starmer QC and Mr A. Hudson for the Times Newspapers Limited,
Guardian Newspapers Limited and the British Broadcasting Corporation
Hearing date: 16th December 2005
Crown Copyright ©
PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION:
" for reasons of national security and the avoidance of harm to the due administration of justice, this court will sit in camera for those parts of the trial and the pre-trial process during which there is any evidence given or any reference made to evidence, information or argument which relates to the material disclosed by the prosecution by a notice dated "
" general publication of the relevant parts of it could give rise to a substantial risk to national security. Additionally it could obstruct the identification of, and cause the Crown to be deterred from prosecuting in this and other cases, those who it is in the public interest should be tried. The importance of the principle of open justice and the special function of the media are acknowledged, but the grave risk to national security at the present time from potential acts of terrorism and the likely obstruction both to the identification of perpetrators and to the bringing to justice those who are identified are so real that an exceptional course is justified. Departure from the principle must be the minimum necessary to achieve the objective."
" evidence relating to, or any reference to, the events touching or concerning his [the defendant's] treatment out of this jurisdiction, from the commencement of the investigation to the time of his arrest on 8 February 2005, to be given in camera. It is not intended that any order should prohibit publication of, or public access to, any part of the trial or pre-trial process in which only his account of his treatment is given in evidence."
The proceedings before Sir Michael Astill
"Where a prosecutor intends to apply for an order that all or part of a trial be held in camera for reasons of national security or for the protection of the identity of a witness or any other person, he shall serve a notice in writing to that effect on the Crown Court officer and the defendant "
"TAKE NOTICE that the Crown intends to apply in this case for an order that part of the trial and pre-trial process take place in camera, under the provisions of Rule 16.10 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.
The part of the trial process in respect of which application will be made is all those parts of the trial and pre-trial process in which any evidence is given relating to, or any reference is made to, any matter disclosed or raised in response to A's case relating to all matters concerning events from the time of his surrender to overseas authorities until the time of his arrest by the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch in February 2005.
This notice is given pursuant to Rule 16.10(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules."
"A notice that the relevant party intends to apply for an order that the relevant part of the trial process be held in camera for reasons of national security or for the protection of identity of a witness. This was not done. We appreciate that there may be rare cases where it might invalidate the very purpose of the application to specify which of the two grounds was being relied on and in such a case it would be proper for the party to use the language of the rule without being more specific."
Rule 67.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005
"Appeal against order restricting public access to proceedings
(1) This rule applies to proceedings in which a prosecutor or a defendant has served a notice under rule 16.10(1) of his intention to apply for an order that all or part of a trial be held in camera for reasons of national security or for the protection of a witness or any other person
(3) Subject to paragraph (4) a notice served on the Registrar under paragraph (2) within 7 days of the display of the notice under rule 16.10(2) and where such an order is made at the trial, the notice shall be treated as the application for leave to appeal against the order.
(4) Where an order is made at the trial, a person aggrieved who has not served a notice under paragraph (2) may apply for leave to appeal against the order by serving notice in the form set out in the Practice Direction on the Registrar within 24 hours after the making of the order
(6) An application for leave to appeal shall be determined by a judge of the court, or the court as the case may be, without a hearing.
(7) Where leave to appeal is granted, the appeal shall be determined without a hearing."
"An application is to be determined by a single judge of the High Court without an oral hearing."