REGINA v Beale

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to appeal by Company A pursuant to section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, relating to the interpretation of section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 ("the 1992 Act"), which grants anonymity to victims of sexual offences. The underlying trial is being conducted by Judge Loraine-Smith QC at the Crown Court at Southwark, involving Defendant, who faces charges of perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The trial is in its second week and expected to last another three weeks.

Defendant previously gave evidence in a 2011 trial concerning a sexual offence allegation against another individual, who was convicted but later had his conviction quashed on appeal. The current trial concerns allegations that Defendant made false claims during those earlier proceedings. Defendant is identified as a vulnerable individual with an emotionally unstable personality disorder and has been granted special measures during the trial.

On 1 June 2017, the issue of Defendant's anonymity under the 1992 Act was raised. The judge initially deferred ruling and subsequently, on 5 June 2017, made an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("the 1981 Act") restricting publication identifying Defendant to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice in other proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 confers a right to anonymity on Defendant in the reporting of the current perjury trial.
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to make an order restricting publication to protect the administration of justice in the current or other proceedings.
3. Whether the judge correctly applied the legal test of "necessity" under section 4(2) and Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights when making the publication restriction order.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first analyzed section 1 of the 1992 Act, which grants automatic lifetime anonymity to victims of sexual offences. The court emphasized that this anonymity is statutory and does not require a court order. However, the court found that section 1(4) of the 1992 Act explicitly excludes from this anonymity reports of "other proceedings" not involving the accused in the sexual offence trial or its appeals. Since Defendant is accused of perjury in separate proceedings, the anonymity provision does not apply to her in this context.

Next, the court examined the scope of the power under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act, which allows the court to postpone publication of reports only to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in the particular proceedings before it or other proceedings pending or imminent. The court found the judge below erred by attempting to protect the administration of justice generally rather than in specific proceedings. No such relevant proceedings were identified.

The court further noted that the order made lacked a defined end point, contrary to the statutory concept of "postponement." The rationale advanced for the order was a general policy concern about protecting anonymity of complainants, which Parliament had expressly excluded from coverage in this situation.

The court emphasized the fundamental principles of open justice and freedom of the press, holding that any restriction under section 4(2) must be "necessary" in the sense of Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, requiring proportionality and a proper balancing of competing interests.

Applying the step-by-step approach from R v Sherwood and others, the court concluded that the judge below failed to properly apply the necessity test, did not consider less restrictive alternatives, and made a general policy decision rather than one based on the facts of the relevant proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE to appeal and ALLOWED THE APPEAL, concluding that the section 4(2) order made by the Crown Court judge was unlawful and must be discharged.

However, to avoid prejudice to the ongoing trial, the court made a new section 4(2) order postponing any report of this appeal judgment until the jury delivers its verdict or is discharged. This order includes a provision that any continuation of the order in the event of a retrial requires a further application.

The immediate effect is to lift the indefinite publication restriction previously imposed while maintaining a temporary reporting restriction to protect the fair trial process. The decision clarifies the limited scope of anonymity protections under the 1992 Act and the strict jurisdictional and necessity requirements for reporting restrictions under the 1981 Act. No new precedent altering the statutory framework was created; rather, the judgment reinforces existing legal principles and the separation of powers between Parliament and the courts on policy matters of anonymity.