AGC & Ors, R. v (Reporting Restriction Decision)

Factual and Procedural Background

The application concerned proceedings in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division arising from an earlier judgment, [2026] EWCA Crim 220, concerning an appeal from a preparatory-hearing ruling. Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 restricted reporting until the conclusion of the trial, subject to specified exceptions or a court order. [1][2]

Certification of a point of law for consideration by the Supreme Court was refused. One of three planned trials had concluded, resulting in four convictions and one acquittal, while two trials remained pending until at least June 2027. [3][4]

The Applicant sought an order disapplying section 37 so that the earlier appeal judgment and related documents could be published, arguing that the judgment provided valuable guidance for other investigations, prosecutions and advisers. [5] The trial judge lifted the Crown Court reporting restriction to the extent necessary for the Court of Appeal to consider the application. [6]

The application was determined on written submissions, with the submissions opposing early publication supported by other respondents. [7][8]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should lift or disapply the section 37 reporting restriction so that the earlier appeal judgment and related documents could be published before the outstanding trials concluded. [4][5]
2. How to balance public and professional access to the judgment against the risk of prejudice to defendants awaiting trial. [9][10]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The earlier judgment provided valuable guidance for the conduct of other investigations and prosecutions and for persons advising individuals investigated or prosecuted in similar circumstances. [5]
• Without an order lifting the restriction, the judgment would not be publicly available for approximately another twelve months. [5]

Respondents' Arguments

• The earlier judgment contained evaluative assessments of alleged behaviour that had not been proved against the relevant defendants. Although those assessments were necessary to address the abuse-of-process issue, disclosure to jurors could be prejudicial. [9]
• The judgment did not involve a point of law of general public importance but applied established legal principles to particular facts. [11]
• The judgment had not been drafted for immediate publication by excluding prejudicial material or omitting the underlying allegations. [12]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the earlier judgment contained evaluative material which could prejudice prospective jurors in the two outstanding trials. It also considered that a one-year wait for public publication was relatively short. [9][16]

Applying the principle stated in R v A [2021] EWCA Crim 128, the Court distinguished public reporting from controlled professional circulation. Section 37 prevented publication in a form accessible to prospective jurors, but did not prevent the judgment being shared with judges, legal professionals, investigators, or others who were required to comply with the restriction. [13][15]

The Court considered that controlled distribution, including appropriate training and safeguards, addressed the Applicant's need for the judgment to inform comparable work while protecting the fair-trial rights of defendants awaiting trial. [10][15]

Holding and Implications

The prosecution application to disapply or lift the section 37 reporting restriction was refused. [17]

The judgment and related materials could not be placed online or otherwise made publicly accessible before the outstanding trials concluded. They could, however, be shared in controlled circumstances with persons required to honour the reporting restriction. [15]

No broader implication or new precedent is identified; the direct effect was to preserve the reporting restriction while allowing limited professional access to the judgment. [15][17]