½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

Article summary

Corporate Crime analysis: MNL was not a party to the contested account forfeiture proceedings but was likely to be named during the course of evidence given at the ten-day hearing. Initially a reporting restriction order (RRO) was granted but following an application from the press after judgment in the contested proceedings, it was discharged. MNL applied for judicial review of that decision. The order had allowed him to be referred to as MNL during proceedings and prevented the press reporting any details which might lead to his identification. The court refused MNL’s claim for judicial review stating that the judge had not erred in his assessment of the legal principles nor had he taken into account irrelevant considerations. The starting point is the common law principle of open justice, any movement away from this should be necessary and proportionate supported by ‘clear and cogent evidence’. Written by Gemma Rose, barrister at 5 St Andrew’s...