Allen v The Grimsby Telegrph & Anor

A claimant seeking anonymity in reports of proceedings must use the correct procedural mechanism and identify a proper legal basis for relief. A court may prohibit publication under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 only where it has first ordered that the name or matter be withheld from the public. An anonymity application requires a balancing of privacy rights against the general public interest in open justice and, where relevant, public protection. A postponement order under section 4(2) requires a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice which the order would avoid. A claimant’s later breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order may independently defeat an application for anonymity.

The claimant, a convicted sex offender subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, sought an injunction preventing publication of his name or identifying details in connection with the order. The proceedings followed earlier orders prohibiting publication of his address and postponing publication of his name pending any High Court application.

The defendant newspaper had published articles naming and depicting the claimant, without referring to his address or the SOPO proceedings. After the claim was issued, the claimant was arrested for breaching the SOPO. The court considered whether the claim was procedurally valid, whether anonymity was justified, whether the newspaper articles breached the postponement order, and the effect of the claimant’s subsequent breach.

1. The claim was struck out. It was procedurally flawed because the claimant had no cause of action against the newspaper for the injunction sought. An injunction directed only to that defendant could not achieve anonymisation of reports by all persons wishing to report the SOPO proceedings.
2. Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 permits directions prohibiting publication of a name or other matter only where the court has first exercised its power to withhold that matter from the public in the proceedings. The District Judge had withheld the claimant’s address, but not his name. The claimant therefore could not rely on section 11 to prohibit publication of his name.
3. Even if a properly constituted application for anonymisation had been made, it would have failed. The relevant question was whether the public interest in identifying the claimant justified the resulting interference with his private life. Given his previous offending, the psychiatric evidence and the need to protect the public, particularly sex workers, that interest substantially outweighed his privacy rights.
4. The articles published on 16 and 19 February 2011 were not contemptuous and did not breach the section 4(2) postponement order. They did not disclose the claimant’s address and did not refer to the SOPO proceedings, which were the subject of the injunction claim.
5. The claimant’s subsequent arrest for conduct amounting to a clear breach of the SOPO provided a further and independent reason why an anonymity claim could not succeed. The earlier orders under sections 4(2) and 11 were discharged forthwith. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s assessed costs of £5,250, subject to enforcement only by further order.