Glencore Energy UK Ltd & Ors v R
[2024] EWCR 6
Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Bluu Solutions Limited & Anor
7 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 500 (KB)
High Court
A company got a deal to avoid prosecution (DPA). The judge's decision was initially kept secret to protect some individuals also involved. After a trial, most individuals were cleared. The judge decided the public’s right to know about the deal outweighed the concerns of one acquitted individual, so their names are now public in the original ruling.
Key Facts
- •Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) were approved between the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Bluu Solutions Limited and Tetris-Projects Limited on 19 July 2021.
- •Publication of the judgment was initially postponed due to ongoing criminal proceedings against former directors and agents.
- •The criminal proceedings concluded in March 2023, with most defendants acquitted.
- •A request was made to de-anonymize the judgment, leading to a hearing to address objections.
- •One acquitted individual objected to the de-anonymization due to lack of prior notification and potential reputational harm.
Legal Principles
Open justice is the starting point, encompassing the mentioning of names.
R (Marandi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2023] EWHC 587; Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417; R(C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 2; In Re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1; Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49
Derogation from open justice requires justification based on necessity in the interests of justice, with a narrow scope and the need for clear and cogent evidence.
Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49
Balancing exercise between open justice and Article 8 rights (right to private life).
Marandi
Unless exceptional circumstances exist, courts must not withhold evidence or impose reporting bans preventing proper identification of individuals.
Judicial College publication “Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts” (July 2023)
Outcomes
The judgment will be published in de-anonymised form.
The court found that the acquitted individual failed to establish the necessity of continued anonymity, balancing open justice principles with Article 8 rights. The court rejected arguments regarding jurisdiction and the existence of a special principle of confidentiality for background facts in DPAs. The ease with which the connection between the acquitted individuals and the case could be made, coupled with the lack of evidence of specific harm, outweighed the individual's Article 8 rights.
Similar Cases
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
[2023] EWCOP 29
Pump Court Chambers Ltd v Gillian Brown (also known as Gillian Goodfield)
[2024] EWHC 2428 (Ch)
Nicole Daedone & Ors v BBC (No 2)
[2023] EWHC 113 (KB)