It is different where a party wishes to issue a press release immediately on hand down, and enlists the help of counsel or solicitors with such preparations. Indeed, the MR commented, drafting press releases to publicise chambers “is not a legitimate activity to undertake within the embargo” ( paragraph 26, judgment). That was not necessary for any of the purposes listed above and should not have happened. The MR highlighted a number of specific errors in this case, including that individuals in the clerks’ room and chambers’ offices were given a summary of the draft judgment’s contents in the form of the press release. The purpose of handing down a judgment in draft, he explained, is to enable the parties to make suggestions for the correction of errors, prepare submissions and agree orders on consequential matters, and prepare themselves for the publication of the judgment – and not for any other purpose. He added that, in future, those who break embargoes can expect to find themselves the subject of contempt proceedings as envisaged by PD 40E. In his written judgment, the MR said it seemed, anecdotally at least, that violations of the embargo are becoming more frequent, and he wanted to send a clear message that the embargo must be respected. The Master of the Rolls (MR) wrote to the barristers personally, emphasising the strict provisions of PD 40E and seeking a written explanation as to precisely what had happened, and also called them into court for an oral hearing. As soon as the error was picked up, the press release was deleted from its website and social media and the senior practice manager wrote to the court explaining that there had been a “miscommunication” in chambers and apologising for the incident. In R (Counsel General for Wales v BEIS), counsel’s chambers accidentally jumped the gun and published a press release on a case counsel was involved in the day before judgment was handed down. The Court of Appeal has recently taken the opportunity to give guidance as to what should – and should not – be done under the embargo. If there is any doubt about who can receive a copy, enquiries should be made of the judge. Where the party is a company (or other similar organisation) additional copies may be distributed in confidence within the organisation, provided that all reasonable steps are taken to preserve its confidential nature and the above requirements are adhered to. (b) no action is taken (other than internally) in response to the draft judgment, before the judgment is handed down.” “(a) neither the draft judgment nor its substance is disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain and This provides that a copy of a draft judgment may be supplied in confidence to the parties provided that: The terms of the embargo are set out in PD 40E (Reserved Judgments). This blog post considers how parties, and their lawyers, can make sure they don’t end up in danger of such treatment. At the very least, as recent examples have shown, it is likely to draw judicial ire and public castigation. A breach of the embargo may be treated as a contempt of court. In the great majority of cases, it all works smoothly – but sometimes it doesn’t, and the consequences can be dramatic. This is usually referred to as receiving the judgment under embargo. They are given a sneak preview, on confidential terms, usually a couple of days beforehand. Where the court is to hand down a reserved judgment, the parties and their legal representatives ordinarily do not have to wait until the judgment is made public to find out the result.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |