Javad Marandi, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 587 (Admin)
Glencore Energy UK Ltd & Ors v R
4 October 2024
[2024] EWCR 6
Crown Court
A company pleaded guilty to bribery. Some people involved were kept secret to protect them while being investigated. Now that some are charged, their names can be revealed, but reporting must not prejudice their trials. Others not charged are no longer protected.
Key Facts
- •Glencore Energy UK Ltd pleaded guilty to bribery charges under the Bribery Act 2010.
- •Anonymity orders were imposed in October 2022 to protect individuals under investigation by the SFO.
- •The SFO charged five individuals in August 2024, with a further two invited to answer charges.
- •The court considered lifting the anonymity orders and imposing a section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 order.
- •The press largely opposed the continuation of anonymity orders.
Legal Principles
Open justice is a fundamental principle, but anonymity and reporting restrictions are derogations from this principle.
Common law and A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25
The court has the power to withhold names or matters from public proceedings and to prohibit their publication (section 11, Contempt of Court Act 1981).
Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 11
Reporting restrictions under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 are measures of last resort and must be objectively justified.
Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 4(2); R v Sarker and BBC [2018] EWCA Crim 1341
Strict liability rule in section 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to conduct tending to interfere with the course of justice.
Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 1
The 'fade factor' (the diminishing impact of news over time) may be less significant in high-profile cases.
R v Sherwood ex p Telegraph Group [2001] EWCA Crim 1075; Attorney-General v Unger [1998] 1 Cr App R 308
Individuals who are not charged have no automatic right to anonymity once an investigation concludes.
Khuja v Times Newspapers and others [2017] UKSC 49
Outcomes
Anonymity orders lifted.
Charging decisions had been made, and the rationale for anonymity (protection of individuals under investigation) no longer applied.
Section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 order imposed.
To prevent prejudice to the fair trial of the charged individuals by restricting reporting of their identities.
No orders made for uncharged individuals.
No legal basis for such orders; their right to privacy during the investigation had ended.
Similar Cases
Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Bluu Solutions Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 500 (KB)
Pump Court Chambers Ltd v Gillian Brown (also known as Gillian Goodfield)
[2024] EWHC 2428 (Ch)
Philip Esper v NHS North West London Integrated Care Board & Anor
[2023] EWCOP 29
YSA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 74 (IAC)