NCTJ Court Reporting Practice Exam

What precedent was set by the Arundel Justices regarding Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act?

1. Names can be published even if mentioned in court

2. A Section 11 order cannot be made if the name has been mentioned in open court

3. A Section 11 order is always mandatory

4. Defendants have absolute anonymity in all cases

The correct answer is: A Section 11 order cannot be made if the name has been mentioned in open court

The choice indicating that a Section 11 order cannot be made if the name has been mentioned in open court is substantiated by the principle of open justice and the scrutiny of court proceedings. This principle holds that once information, including the names of individuals, has been disclosed during open court, that information becomes part of the public domain and cannot subsequently be restricted by a Section 11 order under the Contempt of Court Act. The rationale behind this is to ensure transparency and the integrity of the judicial process, allowing for the press and the public to be informed about court proceedings. The court's decision in the Arundel case reinforced that, while Section 11 is designed to protect certain individuals from the potential harm of publicity, once names have been publicly mentioned in proceedings, the justification for granting anonymity under this section is diminished. This understanding helps clarify the boundaries of court reporting and the conditions under which anonymity can be maintained, emphasizing the balance between protecting individuals’ rights and adhering to the principle of open justice.