HM Attorney General v Crosland (Rev1) [2021] UKSC 58

Timothy Crosland, a barrister and director of Plan B Earth, deliberately breached an embargo on a Supreme Court judgment concerning Heathrow Airport expansion to publicise climate change concerns. The court found him in contempt, imposed a £5,000 fine and £15,000 costs. His appeal was dismissed, with the majority confirming jurisdiction under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.

Facts

Mr Timothy Crosland, an unregistered barrister and director of climate charity Plan B Earth, received a draft judgment in R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd under embargo conditions on 9 December 2020. The judgment was scheduled for hand down on 16 December 2020. On 15 December 2020, believing the judgment contained inaccuracies regarding the Paris Agreement climate targets, Mr Crosland deliberately disclosed the outcome to the Press Association and published statements on Twitter, breaching the embargo. He admitted his actions were calculated acts of civil disobedience intended to generate maximum publicity for his climate change concerns.

The Embargo Breach

The Supreme Court’s Communications Team attempted to prevent further dissemination but with limited success. Mr Crosland’s tweet was re-tweeted at least 406 times, including by Extinction Rebellion UK. He refused requests to remove the statement before the official hand down.

Issues

The court addressed several issues:

• Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from its own contempt order under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960
• Whether the First Instance Panel properly considered Mr Crosland’s article 10 ECHR rights and his motivations
• Whether the Panel was an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 ECHR
• Whether the Attorney General breached disclosure obligations
• Whether the costs order was oppressive and unjust

Judgment

Jurisdiction

The majority held that section 13(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 conferred jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court stated:

“The starting point, having regard to what we said in para 34 above, is the apparent generality of the express right of appeal conferred by section 13(1) and the undoubted inclusion of the Supreme Court within the phrase ‘order or decision of a court’ because of the very broad definition of ‘court’ in subsection (5).”

Lady Arden dissented, holding that section 13 did not apply to an application before a different panel of the same court, as rights of appeal must be expressly created by legislation and naturally mean appeals to a higher authority.

Article 10 and Proportionality

The court rejected Mr Crosland’s argument that the First Instance Panel failed to properly assess his article 10 rights. The judgment stated:

“It was not necessary for the respondent to disclose the result of the appeal in breach of the embargo, in order to permit or facilitate public scrutiny or criticism of the judgment which was to be handed down the following day. Once the judgment had been handed down, the parties, the media and the public were all free to scrutinise the judgment and to comment on it.”

The court distinguished Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler, noting the materially different circumstances.

Impartiality

The court rejected the bias argument, noting that the decision to bring proceedings was taken by the Attorney General, not the court itself, and the First Instance Panel did not include any judges who sat on the Heathrow appeal.

Costs

The court upheld the £15,000 costs order, finding no error of legal principle in the First Instance Panel’s approach.

Implications

This case establishes that:

• There is a right of appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 from contempt orders made by the Supreme Court to a different panel of that court
• Deliberate breach of judgment embargoes constitutes contempt regardless of the contemnor’s motivations or beliefs
• Article 10 ECHR does not provide a defence where the restriction only temporarily delays expression
• The confidentiality of draft judgments is essential to the administration of justice

The case reinforces the importance of respecting court embargoes and confirms that conscientious motives, however strongly held, do not justify contempt of court.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the finding of contempt against Mr Crosland and confirmed the fine of £5,000 and costs order of £15,000.

Source: HM Attorney General v Crosland (Rev1) [2021] UKSC 58