World Uyghur Congress (2) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

An embargo on a draft judgment is mandatory and strict. Disclosure of the judgment’s substance, including its result, may constitute contempt of court. Where a breach is short-lived, promptly addressed, and attributable to an isolated individual error, the court may take no further action beyond recording the incident.

This was the second judgment in the proceedings. It concerned the disclosure of the result of a draft judgment circulated under an embargo before formal hand-down.

The Government Legal Department reported that an HMRC policy adviser had shared the favourable result with officials in several government departments. The court sought an explanation and considered the guidance given, the response of the legal representatives, and the individual’s apology.

The central issue was whether the breach warranted further action by the court.

1. The embargo imposed mandatory and strict confidentiality obligations. Disclosure of the draft judgment or its substance, including the result, could lead to contempt proceedings. The court relied on Counsel General for Wales v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2022] EWCA Civ 181.
2. The Government Legal Department had given clear guidance and acted promptly to identify and contain the breach.
3. The breach resulted from one individual’s failure to read and observe the instructions. He accepted responsibility and made a full apology. The breach was short-lived and rapidly closed down.
4. There was little purpose in taking the matter further. The court took no further action beyond recording the breach.