Contempt of court and social media

Further to the notices relating to Jonathan Fletcher posted by the Diocese of Southwark and the Metropolitan Police, it is perhaps timely to include a link to the Attorney General’s Note, Contempt of court and social media. This states:

“Contempt of court refers to behaviour that undermines or prejudices court proceedings and interferes with the administration of justice, or creates a real risk of that happening. The same rules apply to members of the public as they do to journalists, especially when posting on social media. Posting about a case or upcoming trial on social media could amount to contempt of court if it:

• Comments on facts or evidence that will be heard during the trial.
• Mentions the defendant’s previous convictions or character.
• Names someone in breach of an injunction or court order.
• Names victims, witnesses, and offenders under the age of 18.
• Names a victim of a sex crime.
• Shares any information about a case that the judge has ordered to be kept private.
• Records and/or shares images, video content, or sound clips from the trial.
• Publishes a court judgment in breach of an embargo.

Examples are given in the advice note. [With acknowledgements to the Church Mouse].

COVID-19, employment and obligatory vaccination

On 11 July, the EAT dismissed an appeal by four former employees of Barchester Healthcare Ltd against the rejection of their claims of unfair dismissal for refusing to comply with the respondent’s then newly-introduced policy requiring all staff to have been vaccinated against COVID-19 unless medically exempt. In addition, one of them had claimed direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. We will post a note later in the week.

Before the courts

We understand that the Archbishops’ Council has been given permission to intervene and make both written and oral submissions in the appeal in the latest round of litigation in Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] EAT 89 (which we noted here). Sex Matters, the Association of Christian Teachers and the Free Speech Union have also been given permission to intervene, although only to make written submissions. We also understand that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is shortly to be applying for permission to intervene. The hearing is expected to take place in October.

We also understand that the Court of Appeal has refused Ms Omooba permission to appeal the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd [2020] UKEAT 0521_20_2511 (which we noted here). [With thanks to Peter Frost.]

The Charity Commission and safeguarding

On Friday, the Charity Commission published the conclusions of its inquiry into Ampleforth Abbey and St Laurence Educational Trust. The overall conclusion of the inquiry was that there had been serious failures in safeguarding at both of them. In a press release, the Commission said that

“The findings reveal there were significant weaknesses in the charities’ approach to safeguarding, governance, and management. The Commission identified numerous past instances in which both charities failed to manage safeguarding incidents appropriately and trustees failed to fulfil their responsibilities under charity law, which put students at the college at risk of harm.”

Solar panels and planning permission

In June, we noted that although the petition to install 28 black solar panels on the south-facing roof of the Grade II listed St Anne’s Church, Ings, satisfied the Church of England’s criteria, the Lake District National Park Authority had refused planning permission for the project, concluding that their installation would result in “visual intrusion, disruption and contrast in the consistency of materials displayed in the building and surrounding local area”. Nevertheless, in Re St Anne Ings [2024] ECC Car 2 Fryer-Spedding Ch granted a faculty subject to conditions that planning consent should first be obtained and that the panels should be removed at the end of their expected lifespan of 26 years.

On Wednesday, the BBC reported that an appeal has now been lodged against the National Park Authority’s decision.

A first in modern times?

Of the junior appointments to the new Government, two might be of interest to law and religion geeks. Sir Chris Bryant was appointed Minister of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, while Baroness (Maeve) Sherlock was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Maeve Sherlock is a non-stipendiary Anglican priest, and Chris Bryant was in priest’s orders when he was elected to Parliament. Perhaps a reader who knows more about parliamentary history than we do could enlighten us: is this the first time since the Reformation (or possibly since the Commonwealth) that a cleric of any denomination has served in government?

Quick links

• Gabriela García Escobar, EJL:Talk!: Palliative Care and Assisted Suicide at the ECtHR: Dániel Karsai v. Hungary: on the recent assisted dying case, which we noted briefly here.

And finally…