Complainer's right to anonymity upheld in extortion case
The complainer in a prosecution for extortion has been granted an order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 protecting his anonymity, after the High Court overturned a sheriff's decision to refuse his request.
Referred to as Mr A, the man alleged that the accused in the case, the second respondent, threatened him that she would take certain steps unless he paid her a sum of money. After the complaint called in Dundee Sheriff Court, various news articles disclosed Mr A's name and occupation and the nature of the threats. Some included his photograph. A part time sheriff granted a non-publication order under s 11 of the Act, but this was revoked by another sheriff after hearing media representations, on the basis that s 11 was an ancillary power and there was no foundation for the order sought. The second sheriff's order was suspended pending the High Court hearing.
Before the High Court Mr A submitted that he was entitled to protection from the courts on the grounds that he was the victim of extortion, which related to private matters of a sexual or intimate nature. He submitted that the principle of open justice, including free reporting of his identity, required to yield to both the interests of justice and his right to personal and private life. The public interest in ensuring blackmail victims came forward strongly favoured the granting of some form of restriction, and a limited restriction, preventing disclosure of his identity, did not make significant inroads into the public interest in reporting criminal proceedings.
All the respondents accepted before the High Court that the sheriff did have the necessary power at common law and that the limited restriction sought should be granted in this case. Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Turnbull, who sat with the Lord Justice Clerk (Lady Dorrian) and Lord Menzies, said: "In our opinion, the [second] sheriff who heard the application on 12 September erred in failing to recognise that he had jurisdiction to make the order for anonymity at common law which was requested and he ought to have done so. He ought then to have granted an order under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act. We also recognise that the procurator fiscal ought to have raised the matter in court at the first calling of the case and ought to have given the sheriff hearing the matter on 12 September more assistance than simply adopting a neutral stance."
Dealing with a complaint by the BBC of non-compliance with rule 56.2(3) of the Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules) 1996 (specification in an interim order of the reasons why an order is contemplated), Lord Turnbull described as "unconvincing" a submission that the BBC had been unable to understand the rationale for the restriction contemplated. He concluded: "Other than the general suggestion made by counsel, it has not been ascertained in how many cases rule 56.2(3) was or was not complied with. There is no evidence before us to suggest that non-compliance is commonplace. Accordingly, there is no support for the complaint of overburdening made by counsel for the BBC. Nevertheless, the rule is there for a purpose and we encourage courts considering an application for an order under the Contempt of Court Act to pay close attention to the requirements of chapter 56 of the Act of Adjournal."