Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15

Mr Timothy Crosland, a barrister representing Plan B Earth, deliberately breached an embargo by disclosing the outcome of a Supreme Court judgment on Heathrow Airport expansion before hand down. He admitted doing so as an act of civil disobedience. The court found him guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a £5,000 fine.

Facts

Mr Timothy Crosland, an unregistered barrister and director of the charity Plan B Earth, represented the charity in the Supreme Court appeal R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd concerning the lawfulness of the Airports National Policy Statement for Heathrow’s third runway. On 9 December 2020, the draft judgment was circulated to parties’ representatives under strict confidentiality conditions, with an embargo preventing disclosure until hand down on 16 December 2020.

On 15 December 2020, the day before hand down, Mr Crosland sent an email to the Press Association and posted on Plan B Earth’s Twitter account disclosing the outcome of the appeal. His statement included:

I have taken the decision to break the embargo on that decision as an act of civil disobedience. This will be treated as contempt of court and I am ready to face the consequences.

The disclosure was widely republished by Reuters, City AM, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the Mail Online before the judgment was handed down. Despite being asked by the Supreme Court to remove the tweet, Mr Crosland refused and remained unrepentant.

Issues

Principal Legal Questions

1. Whether Mr Crosland was responsible for disclosing the outcome of the judgment in breach of the embargo;

2. Whether he was aware of the embargo when making the disclosure;

3. Whether his actions constituted or created a risk of interference with the administration of justice sufficiently serious to amount to criminal contempt;

4. Whether he had specific intention to interfere with the administration of justice.

Judgment

The Court found Mr Crosland guilty of criminal contempt of court. Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens delivered the unanimous judgment.

Findings on Liability

The Court held that Mr Crosland was clearly responsible for the disclosure and was fully aware of the embargo, having explicitly acknowledged both in his statements. The Court stated:

A criminal contempt is conduct which goes beyond mere non-compliance with a court order or undertaking and involves a serious interference with the administration of justice.

The Court rejected all defences raised by Mr Crosland, including arguments based on public interest, necessity, and Article 2 ECHR (right to life). The Court emphasised:

There is no such thing as a justifiable contempt of court.

On mens rea, the Court found:

The respondent is a barrister who would have been well aware of the purpose of the condition of confidentiality attaching to draft judgments and the significance of its breach.

Article 10 ECHR

The Court considered freedom of expression under Article 10 but found the restriction was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate objective of maintaining judicial authority, and was proportionate as it was temporary and served specific legitimate purposes.

Penalty

The Court imposed a fine of £5,000 rather than imprisonment, taking into account Mr Crosland’s positive character, that he faced professional disciplinary proceedings, his income, and that greater clemency is normally shown in cases of civil disobedience. However, the Court noted his lack of remorse as an aggravating factor.

Implications

This case reinforces the importance of respecting embargoes on draft judgments circulated to parties before hand down. The Court emphasised that such confidentiality protects the integrity of the judicial system by ensuring judgments are published in final, accurate form and allowing parties to prepare for consequences. The decision confirms that conscientious motives or beliefs in civil disobedience provide no defence to contempt, and that deliberate breaches of court embargoes, even for perceived higher purposes, will be treated seriously.

Verdict: Mr Timothy Crosland was found guilty of criminal contempt of court for deliberately breaching the embargo on the Supreme Court’s draft judgment. The Court imposed a fine of £5,000.

Source: Her Majesty's Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15