R v AGC & Ors (Reporting Restriction decision)

Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 ordinarily prevents public reporting of proceedings, including publication of an appellate judgment, until the relevant trial has concluded, unless the court disapplies the restriction. The restriction does not prevent controlled professional sharing where recipients must honour it. Early publication should be refused where a judgment contains evaluative material about unproved allegations that could prejudice prospective jurors in outstanding trials. The public interest in prompt guidance does not outweigh that fair-trial risk where restricted dissemination can provide necessary access.

The application arose from an earlier appeal concerning a preparatory-hearing ruling in the Basildon Crown Court. This court had handed down its judgment on 4 March 2026 ([2026] EWCA Crim 220) and later refused certification for a Supreme Court appeal.

One of three planned trials concluded on 30 April 2026, resulting in four convictions and one acquittal, with sentence adjourned. Two trials remained pending. The prosecution sought an order disapplying section 37 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 so that the earlier judgment and related appeal documents could be published. The defence opposed publication because the judgment contained evaluative material based on unproved allegations. The central issue was whether the reporting restriction should be lifted before the outstanding trials concluded.

Application refused. The court considered the application on the papers. The Crown Court restriction had been lifted only to the extent necessary to permit this court to consider the application.

1. The earlier appeal judgment, [2026] EWCA Crim 220, contained evaluative judgments based on prosecution evidence. Those judgments were necessary to assess the alleged abuse of process, but the underlying conduct had not been proved against the defendants whose trials remained outstanding. If the material reached a juror, it could prejudice the fairness of those trials.
2. Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 prevented public reporting and publication of the judgment until the conclusion of the trials, subject to specified basic facts and any order disapplying the restriction. A year was a relatively short period for the public to wait, and the value of the judgment as guidance did not outweigh the risk to fair trial rights.
3. Following the approach stated in R v A [2021] EWCA Crim 128, the restriction did not prevent controlled sharing of the judgment among judges and legal professionals, provided that all recipients honoured it. The same applied to sharing with CPS and police colleagues, counsel or adversaries, and those responsible for ensuring that operations of the relevant kind were properly supervised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
4. The judgment could therefore be used within properly controlled distribution systems, but it could not be placed online or otherwise made publicly accessible in a way that allowed prospective jurors to find and read it. That was the best available balance between access to the judgment and protection of the outstanding trials.

The prosecution application was refused. The ruling was written so that it could be published immediately, and the press could make representations about its contents.

• Basildon Crown Court: His Honour Judge Collery KC made the preparatory-hearing ruling underlying the earlier appeal. The Crown Court reporting restriction was later lifted only so far as necessary for the present application.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The earlier appeal resulted in a judgment dated 4 March 2026, [2026] EWCA Crim 220. An application to certify a point of law of general public importance for the Supreme Court was refused.
• Present application: The prosecution applied to disapply section 37 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and permit publication before the remaining trials concluded. The application was decided on the papers and refused.