Persons formerly known as Craig Winch, Debbie Winch and Carol Winch (anonymity order)
Case No. QB-2021-001512
High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Divisional Court
3 December 2021
Before:
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Warby
And
The Honourable Mr Justice Johnson
In the matter of the persons formerly known as:
(1) Craig Winch
(2) Debbie Winch
(3) Carol Winch
And an application for an injunction contra mundum
ORDER
PENAL NOTICE: IMPORTANT
TAKE NOTICE: IF YOU NEGLECT TO OBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD
IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT, A FINE OR
SEQUESTRATION OF YOUR ASSETS
ANY PERSON WHO DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS ANY OTHER PERSON TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE THEIR ASSETS SEIZED
UPON the Claimants having brought this claim for an injunction contra mundum
AND UPON an interim injunction having been granted by Order of Mr Justice Murray at a hearing on 24 April 2021 and varied and continued by Order of Lord Justice Warby and Mr Justice Nicklin of 7 May 2021
AND UPON the Court having read the witness statements of the Claimants, an officer of a law enforcement agency and the Claimants’ solicitor, Martin Forshaw filed in support of the Part 8 Claim and the interim application
AND UPON the Court having considered the provisions of section 12 Human Rights Act 1998
AND UPON no person having filed and served any evidence or witness statements in response to the claim for an injunction
AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimants and no other person attending the hearing to make representations
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Any person with notice of this Order must not:
a. publish or cause to be published in any newspaper or broadcast in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable or satellite programme service or publish or cause to be published by public computer network (including social media platforms) or website:
i. any photograph, video footage, film or voice recording, depiction, or image in any form of, or which purports to be of, the Claimants or any of them, or any description of, or which purports to be of, their physical appearance, voices or accents;
ii. any information purporting to identify any person(s) as being the persons formerly known as the Claimants; and/or
iii. any information likely to lead to the identification of, or purporting to describe, the past, present or future whereabouts (including alleged residential or work addresses and telephone numbers or social media profiles) of the Claimants or any of them since November 2016.
b. solicit any information within paragraph 1(a)(i)-(iii) above at any time from any person.
PROVIDED THAT nothing in this Order shall prevent any person:
(1) publishing information relating to proceedings before any Court sitting in public, except any description which is, or purports to be of, the First Claimant’s physical appearance, voice or accent or any information which is likely to identify him.
(2) soliciting information in the course of or for the purpose of the exercise by the person soliciting information of any duty or function authorised by statute or by any court of competent jurisdiction.
2. Paragraph 1 above shall apply subject to the following proviso in relation to any internet service provider (‘ISP’), its employees and agents:
a. an ISP shall not be in breach of this injunction unless it, or any of its employees or agents:
i. knew that the material had been placed on its servers or could be accessed via its service; or
ii. knew that the material was likely to be placed on its servers, or was likely to be accessed via its service; and in either case
iii. failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication.
b. an employee or agent of an ISP shall not be in breach of the injunction unless he or it:
i. knew that the material had been placed on its servers or could be accessed via its service; or
ii. knew that the material was likely to be placed on its servers, or was likely to be accessed via its service; and in either case
iii. failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication and to induce the ISP to prevent the publication.
c. an ISP, employee or agent shall be considered to know anything which he or it would have known if he or it had taken reasonable steps to find out;
d. “taking all reasonable steps to prevent the publication” includes the taking of all reasonable steps to remove the material from the ISP’s servers or to block access to the material.
3. The above proviso to paragraph 1 of this Order shall not apply so as to permit the publication of material falling within paragraphs 1(a)(i)-(iii) of this Order merely on the ground that such material has any time been published on the internet and/or outside England and Wales.
ANONYMITY FOR OFFICER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
4. The contents of the Second Closed Witness Statement of the LEA Officer dated 29 September 2021 (“the Second Closed Statement”) be withheld from proceedings in open court.
5. Pursuant to section 6 Human Rights Act, s.11 Contempt of Court Act and/or CPR 39.2(4), it is prohibited to publish any part of the Second Closed Statement.
SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
6. A copy of this Order will be placed on the Judiciary website.
7. Copies of this Order endorsed with a penal notice are to be served by the Claimants’ solicitors as follows:
a. The Order must be served with the Explanatory Note.
b. Service on any newspaper, sound or television broadcaster, cable or satellite programme services provider, news agency, or operator of a public computer network (which includes operators of social media platforms) or website may be effected by email or by first class post addressed to the Editor in the case of a newspaper, the Senior News Editor in the case of a broadcaster or cable or satellite programme service, a person responsible for any public computer network or website administrator (as appropriate) and/or the legal departments of those organisations.
TERRITORIAL LIMITATION
8. In respect of persons outside England and Wales:
a. Except as provided for in sub-paragraph (b) below, the terms of this Order do not affect or concern anyone outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
b. The terms of this Order will bind the following persons in a country or state outside the jurisdiction of this court:
i. any person who
1. is subject to the jurisdiction of the court; and
2. has been given written notice of this Order at his residence or place of business within the jurisdiction of this court; and
3. is able to prevent acts or omissions outside the jurisdiction of this court which constitute or assist in a breach of the terms of this Order; and
ii. any other person, only to the extent that this Order is declared enforceable by or is enforced by a court in that country or state.
INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDER
9. A person who is an individual who is ordered not to do something must not do it himself or in any other way. He must not do it through others acting on his behalf or on his instructions or with his encouragement.
10. A person which is not an individual which is ordered not to do something must not do it itself or by its directors, officers, partners, employees, or agents or in any other way.
11. It may be a contempt of court for any person notified of this Order knowingly to assist in or permit a breach of this Order. Any person doing so may be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets seized.
Dated the 29th day of November 2021
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The First Claimant gave evidence for the prosecution (or was due to do so) in the following criminal trials, namely (i) R v Smart and Roberts; (ii) R v Belford, Forth, Laing and Bestford, R v Blake, Winter, Murphy, Murphy, Ramshaw, Harding, Owens & Blake; (iii) R v Trott, Ratcliffe, Barnett and Steabler; (iv) R v Anderson, McBride, Gooden, Johnson, Casey, Belford and Smart; (v) R v Freeman and Dobbing (vi) R v Gloyne, Nikolic, Sweeney, Cahill and Towers.
The nature of the offences, the Crown Court which heard the cases, and the year of the above trials were as follows:
R v Smart & oth. – Arson with Intent to Endanger Life, Teesside Crown Court (2018)
R v Belford & oths – Possession of Firearms, Newcastle Crown Court (2018)
R v Blake, & oths. – Supply of Controlled Drugs, Teesside Crown Court (2018)
R v Trott & oths – Possession of Firearms / Supply of Class ‘A’ Drugs, Teesside Crown Court (2018)
R v Anderson & oths – Conspiracy to Supply of Class ‘A’ Drugs, Teesside Crown Court (2019)
R v Freeman & oth. – Wounding with Intent, Teesside Crown Court (2019)
R v Gloyne & oths – Conspiracy to Supply Class ‘A’ Controlled Drugs, Kidnap, False Imprisonment, Assault, Teesside Crown Court (2021)
As a result of the First Claimant having given information and assistance to the police and evidence for the prosecution in the above proceedings, a law enforcement agency, on the basis of information and intelligence, considers that there is a risk to the First Claimant’s life. All of the Claimants are using now using new names.
The purpose of the injunction and associated orders is to protect the lives of the Claimants, and protect them from serious harm.