The lady chief justice has rebuked Attorney General Lord Hermer for not publicly correcting factual inaccuracies in the Fordingbridge case, stating that he should have done so “to protect the administration of justice [and] the safety of all involved”.
According to the report, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) issued a press release with “two material factual inaccuracies” after the sentencing of three boys convicted of rape.
Fordingbridge Case Judgment
The Court of Appeal judgment, handed down by Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, Lord Justice Edis, and Ms Justice Norton, noted that the CPS’ press release fueled misinformed media reports, which led to public outcry and personal condemnation of the judge and the young boys.
The director of public prosecutions acknowledged that the failures were due to human error and that normal practices, such as legal checks and clearance procedures, were not followed.
The court accepted the DPP’s apologies for the “serious failures” but noted that the delay in correcting the press release was “unacceptable”.
Attorney General’s Comments
The judgment stated that the attorney general chose to comment on the pending legal proceedings, which is “usually wise not to do”, and that he should have corrected the reported inaccuracies while speaking about the gravity of the offending.
Baroness Carr said that the attorney general is not under a general duty to patrol the accuracy of press reporting, but that in this case, he should have publicly corrected the factual inaccuracies to protect the administration of justice and the safety of all involved.
Related: Claimants face costs clampdown in huge case
The court’s concerns included the lack of condemnation of the personal vilification of the judge.
Independence of the Judiciary
The judgment highlights the importance of separating the exercise of powers under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 from politics, and that the attorney general should exercise this power independently and not in pursuit of government agenda.
As the court noted, the power to refer under section 36 is not vested in the government, but in the attorney general, who is to exercise it independently.
The lady chief justice’s rebuke of the attorney general is a significant development in the Fordingbridge case.
It will be important to see how the attorney general’s office responds to the judgment and the concerns raised by the court in the coming weeks and months.
The judiciary has published the Fordingbridge sentencing transcript, which provides further insight into the case and the court’s decision, including the conviction appeal process.
