header-logo header-logo

Respect embargo or risk contempt

23 February 2022
Issue: 7968 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail
Breaches of embargo on publication of the contents of a court judgment are ‘becoming more frequent’, the Court of Appeal has warned

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, giving the main judgment, promised tough action on future breaches, while acknowledging that mistakes happen, in R (on the application of the Counsel General for Wales) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWCA Civ 181, All ER (D) 79 (Feb).

The draft judgment in the case was sent by the judge’s clerk to counsel’s clerks at Matrix Chambers, with the statement that the draft was confidential and disclosure may be treated as contempt of court. However, a Matrix press release was uploaded too early, appearing on the chambers’ website, LinkedIn and Twitter. It was taken down as soon as the error was discovered and the senior practice manager at Matrix alerted the judge to the mistake, which she said occurred due to a ‘miscommunication’ within chambers.

Sir Geoffrey said: ‘I should say that I have called this case into court because, amongst other reasons, the breaches that occurred here are not alone.

‘I have become aware formally and informally of other breaches in other cases. It seems, anecdotally at least, that violations of the embargo on publicising either the content or the substance of draft judgments are becoming more frequent.

‘The purpose of this judgment is not to castigate those whose inadvertent oversights gave rise to the breaches in this case, but to send a clear message to all those who receive embargoed judgments in advance of hand-down that the embargo must be respected. In future, those who break embargoes can expect to find themselves the subject of contempt proceedings as paragraph 2.8 of CPR PD40E envisages.’

Concluding, he said it was not appropriate for persons in the clerks’ rooms or offices of chambers to see the draft judgment or be given a summary of its contents, and drafting press releases was not a legitimate activity to undertake within the embargo. He suggested one named clerk provide the link between the court and the barristers, and that chambers and solicitors put ‘proper precautions and double-checks’ in place to catch errors in time.

Issue: 7968 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll