R v B (CA459/06)

In the case of CA459/06, the applicant is due to stand trial on two separate indictments: one containing four counts alleging threats to cause grievous bodily harm, and the second alleging sexual offending against four separate complainants. The applicant is seeking severance of the sexual offending charges. The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal on the question of whether the decision of the District Court to refuse to prohibit the publication of the applicant's name until such time as an application for severance could be heard and determined was, in the circumstances of the case, plainly wrong.

The Court of Appeal found that the risk of jury contamination, as demonstrated by the applicant, was a real one. This risk was heightened by the fact that the applicant was well-known in the town in which he lived, making it more likely that jurors would resort to internet searches. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that open justice considerations are always important and that there is a possibility that further complainants may come forward. However, the Court found that the District Court's decision to decline the application to continue orders suppressing publication of the applicant's name was plainly wrong.

The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal on the second question, with the modification that it would require clarification. The existing suppression orders are to remain in place pending the hearing of the appeal.