Felstead & Ors, R. v

In managing ongoing criminal appeals, the court may prioritise their proper progress and avoidance of delay. Where possible contempt proceedings have not yet been initiated and the relevant steps remain preliminary, the question whether proceedings should be brought, and by whom, may be adjourned until the appeals are concluded. The court may also direct that later hearings on the ancillary issue take place before a different constitution. A request for an intermediate constitution to determine whether disclosure material should first be considered was refused where that would risk diverting the appeal process.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was dealing with references by the Criminal Cases Review Commission concerning Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner and Seema Misra, in proceedings involving 41 appellants. The hearing concerned possible improper disclosure and the possibility of contempt proceedings against Mr Marshall and/or Miss Page.

The central procedural issues were whether consideration of any contempt proceedings should be deferred so that the appeals could proceed without delay, whether later hearings should be before the same or a different constitution, and whether an intermediate constitution should determine the disclosure issue first.

Disposition. The court gave its decision immediately and reserved its written reasons. It directed that consideration of possible contempt proceedings be adjourned until the appeals had concluded, and that all further hearings be before a different constitution.

1. The court gave priority to ensuring that the appeals proceeded properly and without delay. The scale of the proceedings, involving 41 appellants and many interested persons, made it necessary to avoid diversion of the appeals by collateral contempt matters.
2. No contempt proceedings had yet been initiated. The steps taken were preliminary to any initiation. Accordingly, the question whether proceedings should be brought against Mr Marshall and/or Miss Page, and whether they should be initiated by the Post Office or by the court of its own initiative, was adjourned until after conclusion of the appeals.
3. Although the court did not accept all the submissions concerning the constitution of the court, it directed that all further hearings be before a different constitution.
4. The court refused a request for an intermediate constitution to consider whether disclosure had breached Miss Page’s rights or whether material should be considered before being seen by the later constitution. The court gave no further guidance on that proposal.
5. The court stated that circulation of draft written reasons would be limited to correction of typographical errors and similar matters, and would not provide an opportunity for further submissions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — References by the Criminal Cases Review Commission were considered in ongoing appeals. The court made procedural directions and adjourned consideration of any contempt proceedings until the appeals concluded: [2020] EWCA Crim 1678.
• Lower court proceedings — not stated in the judgment.