Javad Marandi, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 587 (Admin)
Philip Esper v NHS North West London Integrated Care Board & Anor
10 July 2023
[2023] EWCOP 29
Court of Protection
Someone was found guilty of ignoring a court order but didn't get punished. The judge said their name could be used in the news because open courts are important. The person appealed but lost because the law says names can be revealed unless it would cause major problems. The judge's decision was upheld.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Philip Esper appealed District Judge Beckley's decision to publish a judgment naming him as a contemnor in Court of Protection committal proceedings, while protecting the anonymity of the protected party (AB) and other relatives.
- •Esper admitted three breaches of a contact order with AB and was found in contempt of court, but received no sanction.
- •The appeal concerned the application of the Lord Chief Justice's Practice Direction: Committal for Contempt of Court - Open Court, March 2015 (PD 2015), and Court of Protection Rule 21.8(5) regarding anonymity in such proceedings.
- •A Transparency Order protected AB's identity, but explicitly excluded committal proceedings.
Legal Principles
Open justice is a fundamental principle; derogations are only justified in exceptional circumstances when strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.
PD 2015, paragraphs 3, 4
In committal proceedings, the court must order non-disclosure of a party's or witness's identity only if non-disclosure is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect that person's interests.
COPR r21.8(5)
Where court rules conflict with a practice direction, the rules prevail.
R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1346, Bovale Ltd v SSCLG [2009] 1 WLR 2274 (CA)
Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 allows ancillary orders to prevent publication of matters exempted from disclosure in court.
Contempt of Court Act 1981, s11
The Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to act compatibly with Convention rights, including Articles 8 (right to private life) and 10 (freedom of expression).
Human Rights Act 1998, s12
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge correctly applied COPR r21.8(5), finding that the necessary conditions for non-disclosure of Esper's identity were not met. The judge's decision was within his discretion and did not represent an error of law.
Permission to appeal granted on grounds of an important point of law.
The case raised significant questions about the interpretation of the COPR and PD 2015 regarding anonymity in committal proceedings.
Similar Cases
YSA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 74 (IAC)
Tortoise Media v A Local Authority in Wales & Ors
[2024] EWFC 306 (B)
Pump Court Chambers Ltd v Gillian Brown (also known as Gillian Goodfield)
[2024] EWHC 2428 (Ch)
Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Bluu Solutions Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 500 (KB)