Background
The prosecution applied to lift the reporting restriction imposed by section 37 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 on proceedings that had produced an earlier Court of Appeal judgment, [2026] EWCA Crim 220. That judgment concerned an appeal from a ruling at a preparatory hearing and addressed an allegation that the nature of the investigation made the prosecution an abuse of process.
The first of three planned trials ended on 30 April 2026, with four defendants convicted and one acquitted, but the two remaining trials were not expected to conclude before June 2027. The prosecution argued that immediate publication would provide valuable guidance for other investigations, prosecutions, and advisers. The defence opposed publication because the earlier judgment contained evaluations of alleged conduct based on prosecution evidence that had not yet been proved against the defendants awaiting trial. The application was decided on written submissions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal refused the prosecution’s application to disapply section 37. It accepted that the earlier judgment contained material capable of prejudicing jurors in the outstanding trials and agreed that the judgment applied established principles to particular facts rather than deciding a point of law of general public importance. Protecting the untried defendants’ fair-trial rights outweighed the benefit of making the judgment publicly available approximately one year earlier.
The court explained that the restriction prohibited public publication, including placing the judgment online where prospective jurors might find it. It did not prevent the CPS or police from sharing the clearly restricted judgment with colleagues, opposing lawyers, judges, legal professionals, or those supervising relevant operations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, provided everyone honored the restriction. The reporting-restriction ruling itself was written for immediate publication, and members of the press remained free to make representations about it.
Key Takeaways
- Guidance value alone did not justify public release of a judgment containing potentially prejudicial assessments while related defendants still awaited trial.
- A section 37 reporting restriction bars publication to the public but does not necessarily prevent controlled professional sharing with recipients bound to observe it.
- The court treated the expected delay until the remaining trials concluded as proportionate to protecting the defendants’ fair-trial rights.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes public access from restricted professional circulation. Prosecutors and investigators may use a judgment internally or share it with appropriate legal professionals without placing it where prospective jurors can access it.
For media organizations and criminal practitioners, the ruling shows that appellate guidance arising from preparatory proceedings may remain unpublished until all related trials conclude when its factual evaluations could prejudice an untried defendant.