Queen’s Bench Divisional Court
Published February 20, 2008
Crawford v Director of Public Prosecutions
Before Lord Justice Thomas and Mrs Justice Dobbs
Judgment February 8, 2008

Courts should take great care when imposing orders restricting the reporting of criminal proceedings. Before impositing such orders, which should not be made routinely, a balancing exercise should be carried out with regard to the public interest, and members of the press should be asked whether they wished to make submissions.

The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court so stated when lifting orders which had been imposed by Highbury Corner Magistrates and Inner London Crown Court under section 39(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibiting the publication of matters relating to criminal proceedings against Lincoln Crawford which might identify his children, and declining to make any further order restricting reporting.

The Divisional Court dismissed on February 4, 2008, the appellant’s appeal by way of case stated against his conviction by Inner London Crown Court of two offences of harassing his former wife and her partner. The proceedings were adjourned in order to allow representations on the reporting restriction orders to be made by Times Newspapers Ltd, Guardian News and Media Ltd, MGN Ltd, Associated Newspapers, British Broadcasting Corporation, Independent News and Media Ltd and Telegraph Media Group Ltd.

Mr Anthony Speaight, QC, directly instructed, for Lincoln Crawford; Mr Miles Bennett for the Director of Public Prosecutions; Mr Anthony Hudson for the media.

LORD JUSTICE THOMAS said that because of the orders, which had been continued by the Divisional Court in the exercise of its inherent powers pending press representations in the light of the decision on February 1 of the Court of Appeal in In re Trinity Mirror plc and Others (The Times February 13, 2008), there had been no publication of anything about the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

Previous authorities had decided that it was necessary to examine each case on its particular facts when balancing rights to privacy under article 8 and to freedom of publication under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

An important factor was that the proceedings were criminal ones. The decision to prosecute brought the matter into the public domain, and the appellant should be treated no differently from anyone else who had been convicted of a criminal offence.

There was no evidence of any particular harm to his children other than the obvious embarrassment of their father having been convicted of a criminal offence. There was nothing to distinguish the instant case from the plight of the children in In re Trinity Mirror.

The public profile of the appellant was not a material consideration on one side or the other. All persons were equal before the law in England and Wales.

The balance between articles 8 and 10 it must in the instant case be struck firmly in favour of removing the prohibition on reporting.

An added factor was that there was no application by the mother of the children even though the Ccrown Prosecution Service had been taking steps to inform her of the present application.

Mrs Justice Dobbs agreed.

Solicitors: Crown Prosecution Service; Ms Gillian Phillips, Wapping.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Linklaters hits record on 15% revenue rise
• Guy Hands sues Baker Tilly over tax advice
• Vodafone defeats Customs in tax fight