Anonymity – restriction orders

Anonymity – restriction orders

¶73. In the course of the inquest proceedings, applications had been made for anonymity orders in respect of a number of proposed witnesses whose evidence was to be adduced although not necessarily orally.

¶74. On 29 January 2013, I gave directions about the making of any anonymity applications.

¶75. On 27 February 2013, the MPS applied for anonymity in respect of three witnesses known as D1, D2 and C1.

¶76. On 14 March 2013, I conducted a hearing at which these applications were considered. For reasons which included the need by the representatives of media organisations to receive more information before they could usefully make submissions on the applications, the applications were adjourned.

¶77. On 11 June 2013, I conducted a further hearing to consider these anonymity applications, and a further anonymity application made by AWE plc in respect of a witness known as A3.

¶78. On 11 July 2013, I granted the application in relation to A3, but refused the applications in relation to D1, D2 and C1. Because the applications were based in part on material which could not be made public, the written ruling had a closed addendum dealing with that material.

¶79. On 4 October 2013, I conducted a further hearing to consider anonymity applications in relation to witnesses known as C2, C3, D3, D6 and D7, together with a residual issue in relation to D1, D2 and C1 as to whether there should be disclosure of the contents of the closed addendum in relation to them.

¶80. On 26 November 2013, I granted the application in relation to D3. Because the witnesses C2, C3, D6 and D7 formed part of a group that also included D3, and identification of any member of that group other than D3 would be likely to lead to the identification of D3, I also granted the application in relation to them although the individual merits of the applications in relation to them would not have warranted the grant of an anonymity order.

¶81. On the same day, I also ruled that none of the contents of the closed addendum in relation to D1, D2 and C1 should be made public at that time.

¶82. On 5 September 2014, at the first directions hearing following the establishment of the Inquiry, all core participants and the media agreed that for the purposes of the Inquiry I should adopt the anonymity orders I had already made during the inquest proceedings. Accordingly, on 9 October 2014 a restriction order was made repeating the anonymity orders which had been made during the inquest.

¶83. On 14 November 2014, a further restriction order was made granting anonymity in relation to a witness known as A1.

¶84. On 27 November 2014, a further restriction order was made granting anonymity in relation to a witness known as D9.

¶85. Further applications were made in respect of these witnesses that, if they gave oral evidence to the Inquiry, they should be screened from the public and the press. In relation to all of the witnesses who were granted anonymity, I made a further order providing that if they were required to attend and give evidence at the public hearing of the Inquiry, their physical appearance would be concealed from the public, the media and core participants, but not from me, counsel to the Inquiry, counsel for the core participants or security cleared Inquiry staff. Further orders were made directing that their physical appearance need not be concealed from any other person whom I directed.

¶86. On 9 October 2015, I made a further restriction order granting anonymity in relation to a witness known as witness G. By the time of this order, I did not envisage a need to take any further oral evidence.

Broadcasting

¶87. Under existing legislation, broadcasting was not permitted by law of any of the inquest proceedings. Following the establishment of the Inquiry, broadcasting would be permitted of such parts of the Inquiry proceedings and to the extent which I considered appropriate.

¶88. On 31 July 2014, I permitted broadcast of the formal opening of the Inquiry. Arrangements were made with one broadcast company for a video feed to be made available to other broadcasters.

¶89. On 5 September 2014, I heard submissions about whether I should permit the broadcast of the Inquiry's proceedings, particularly the evidence which the Inquiry was to receive. In addition, I heard submissions about whether the Inquiry's proceedings should be streamed live over the Internet.

¶90. On 7 November 2014, I gave a written provisional ruling inviting further submissions on certain aspects of the issue of live streaming of the Inquiry's proceedings over the Internet.

¶91. On 14 November 2014, I heard further submissions on that issue. Those submissions included evidence from the MPS about the responses given by some prospective witnesses to the idea that their evidence might be broadcast, and the effect that might have on some witnesses' willingness to give evidence to the Inquiry.

¶92. On 26 November 2014, I gave a written ruling giving reasons for my decision not to permit live streaming of the proceedings of the Inquiry when it took evidence. Different considerations applied to the opening and closing statements by counsel to the Inquiry and by core participants' legal representatives, which I would permit to be broadcast.

Text based communications from the hearing rooms

¶93. On 12 September 2014, I published a protocol concerning the use of live text based communications in the hearing rooms.

¶94. This provided that, in general, any member of a legal team, or member of the press, or member of the public was free to use a mobile electronic device in the hearing rooms to send and receive text based communications whilst the Inquiry was sitting, provided that the device in question was used in silent mode and there was no disruption to proceedings. This was in practice superseded by the arrangements set out in the protocol described in paragraph 98 below.

¶95. I made clear that mobile devices were not to be used in the hearing rooms at any time to make or receive telephone calls, to take photographs or to undertake audio or video recording.