Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Crosland

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to orders made by an earlier panel which found that he had committed contempt by disclosing the draft outcome of R (Friends of the Earth) v Heathrow Airport Ltd while it was subject to an embargo. The court confirmed the principal elements of criminal contempt: unlawful disclosure in breach of a court direction, awareness of the embargo and deliberate conduct creating a real risk of interference with the administration of justice, including a finding that the appellant had the requisite intention to interfere. The court held there is no public‑interest or necessity defence to justify deliberate breach of an embargo and that the short, time‑limited restriction on publication was a proportionate interference with article 10 rights. The panel also upheld a costs order, applying the Supreme Court Rules and proportionate assessment of means. A separate issue about the court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 was resolved in the majority by reading section 13 as permitting an appeal from a panel of the Supreme Court exercising its original contempt jurisdiction to another panel of the Court; Lady Arden dissented on jurisdiction and would have relied on the Court's inherent jurisdiction instead.

Background and procedural history: This is an appeal against the Supreme Court's committal order of 10 May 2021 ([2021] UKSC 15) and the related costs decision. The underlying judgment whose draft was disclosed was R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52. The Attorney General brought committal proceedings after the Court's Registrar referred an embargo breach by Tim Crosland to the Attorney. A three‑judge panel found contempt and imposed a fine of

Nature of relief sought: The Attorney General sought committal for contempt for deliberate breach of the embargo, with a fine and payment of the Attorney's costs. The original panel imposed a fine of and costs of ; the appellant appealed those orders.

Issues framed:

• Whether the appellant's deliberate disclosure of a draft judgment in breach of a court embargo amounted to criminal contempt (elements, mens rea and seriousness).
• Whether article 10 rights and any public‑interest justification or defence (necessity, duress, or article 2) could excuse the breach.
• Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 from one panel to another.
• Whether the costs order was lawful and proportionate, having regard to the appellant's means and article 10.
• Allegations of procedural unfairness and bias.

Reasoning and resolution: The court upheld the findings that the appellant had published the draft judgment in breach of a clear court direction, was aware of the embargo and acted deliberately to maximise publicity, thereby creating a real risk of interference with the administration of justice; the First Instance Panel had been entitled to reject defences based on public interest, necessity or article 2 and to hold the embargo proportionate under article 10. On jurisdiction, the majority construed section 13(1) as granting a right of appeal from any court exercising contempt jurisdiction, and held that an appeal from one panel of the Supreme Court to a differently constituted panel was both practicable and within the statute; Lady Arden disagreed and would have confined relief to the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The costs award was upheld as within the court's discretion and proportionate in all the circumstances.

Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the earlier panel's findings that the appellant committed criminal contempt by intentionally disobeying a court embargo on a draft judgment; there is no public‑interest or necessity defence to such a deliberate breach; the embargo was a proportionate restriction on article 10 rights; the Supreme Court (majority) has jurisdiction under s.13 AJA 1960 to hear an appeal from one panel to another in contempt matters, and the costs order was a lawful, proportionate exercise of judicial discretion. Lady Arden dissented on the issue of jurisdiction, preferring to rely on the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Appeal from the decision of a three‑Justice panel of the Supreme Court dated 10 May 2021 ([2021] UKSC 15) which found Mr Crosland guilty of contempt and imposed a fine and costs; this appeal was heard by a differently constituted panel of the Supreme Court and resulted in the judgment in Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 58. The underlying substantive appeal giving rise to the draft judgment was R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52.