Glaister & Anor, R (on the application of) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales

A court embargo on a confidential draft judgment is fundamentally different from a journalism embargo. The draft and its substance must not be disclosed to journalists or used for publicity before hand-down, even if publication is postponed. The permitted use is confined to correcting errors, preparing consequential submissions and orders, and properly assisting parties with preparation for publication.

Lawyers who become aware of a breach must investigate it with care, urgency and rigour and give complete and prompt disclosure to the court. Criminal contempt requires a deliberate breach, meaning that the person was well aware that the conduct breached the embargo. Whether to commence contempt proceedings is a discretionary question governed by gravity, enforcement, the circumstances, the overriding objective, necessity and proportionality.

The court had previously determined a judicial review concerning the Leonard Family and the Scout Association. Before hand-down of the final judgment, a confidential embargoed draft was circulated to the parties’ legal representatives. A Fieldfisher employee disclosed the draft and its substance to journalists, supplied quotations and outcome-related material, and assisted with internal marketing preparations.

The court undertook a post-hand-down dual enquiry. It investigated the facts and breaches of the court embargo and then considered, under CPR 81.6, whether contempt proceedings should be commenced. The central issues were the meaning and scope of the court embargo, the reporting duties arising when a breach is discovered, whether any breach may constitute criminal contempt, and whether further proceedings were necessary and proportionate.

1. Court embargo and journalism embargo. A confidential draft judgment is subject to formal and legally enforceable restrictions. Its draft and substance are confidential to the parties and their legal representatives. Disclosure to a journalist is prohibited, independently of whether the material is made public. The draft may be used only for the purposes specified in CPR40PDE, including correcting errors, preparing consequential submissions and orders, and preparing parties for publication.
2. The journalism practice of sharing information confidentially for simultaneous publication does not alter the court embargo. Sending a draft judgment, outcome-related indications, quotations or other substantive content to journalists is a breach. Internal marketing preparation is also outside the permitted purposes, although a non-lawyer may properly receive the draft to assist and advise the client in preparation for hand-down.
3. Recipients, including solicitors and barristers, must take all reasonable steps to preserve confidentiality. Once a breach is identified, they must promptly establish the full facts, notify leading counsel where appropriate, and make clear and complete disclosure to the court and opposing parties.
4. For criminal contempt, the breach must be deliberate. The person must have been well aware that the conduct constituted a breach. A shortcoming which is neither a breach nor contempt in the face of the court requires an intention to interfere with or impede the administration of justice.
5. The court found multiple breaches and shortcomings, but only the sending of the fourth email attaching the draft judgment, after the embargo had been clearly explained, might constitute contempt. The court declined to issue a summons or refer the matter to the Law Officers. It considered the seriousness of the matter, the circumstances, cooperation, apologies, the public interest in a candid narrative judgment, the absence of repetition risk, and whether further proceedings were necessary and proportionate. The judgment itself sufficiently secured compliance and communicated the seriousness of the embargo.

The judgment arose from a post-hand-down enquiry following the judicial review judgment in [2025] EWHC 167 (Admin). The present court investigated alleged breaches of the confidentiality embargo and decided not to commence contempt proceedings or refer the matter to the Attorney General or Solicitor General.