Pre-trial publicity disseminated via podcasts and the internet does not constitute a fundamentally different category from traditional media publicity for the purposes of the permanent stay test; the differences are of type and degree, not substance. The participation of public officials (including a former solicitor, former coroner and Commissioner of Police) in prejudicial media about a pending or potential prosecution, while inappropriate, does not of itself bring a case into the rare category warranting a permanent stay where the prejudice can be ameliorated by directions to the jury. The grant of a temporary stay to allow the effects of publicity to recede is a legitimate safeguard and is not inconsistent with a refusal of a permanent stay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.