An “unusual” application to restrict reporting of a defendants’ sentencing hearing has been thrown out by the Royal Court which ruled that their youth and welfare did not justify a suspension of open justice.
The application involving the defendant simply referred to as D was held behind closed doors, and a redacted judgment was finalised on 23 December.
Advocate Sam Steel, defending, brought the application on behalf of D for their sentencing hearing to be held out of view of the public and the media, or to permanently restrict the reporting of the case.
But Judge Catherine Fooks noted that the application was filed in an “unusual way” and was first proposed by a probation officer just before the day of sentencing.
While there was limited case law for Guernsey regarding privacy restrictions in criminal cases, Judge Fooks found that the principle of open justice – allowing the public and media access to court hearings so justice can be seen to be done – is the same as in Jersey and England.
The burden of setting out the proportionality and need to restrict reporting or close off court hearings lies with the defendant, she said, but added that sufficient grounds were not put forward by D in this case.
Advocate Steel said D’s case was a rare example when restrictions should be granted due to their young at the time of offending, issues with their welfare, and other reasons which were redacted in the judgement.
But Judge Fooks said the application was lacking in evidence and focused more on the personal impacts publicity would have on D.
“There is simply no basis on which this case can be considered one of those rare exceptions to the principle of open justice, such as to make a derogation necessary and proportionate. The hearing must be in open Court,” she said.
“Such evidence as there is about D and not the administration of justice which is concerned with public policy and not the reputation or feelings of individuals. There is no basis for such a restriction. The case can be reported in the usual way.”