A senior policy adviser with HM Revenue & Customs who emailed an embargoed result of a judgment around Whitehall has avoided any further action.

The unnamed individual had received a draft of a judgment where the Home Office and HMRC had been the defendants, then proceeded to email various government departments revealing the favourable outcome.

In World Uyghur Congress (2) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors, Mr Justice Dove said this individual had failed to read and observe important instructions under which the draft judgment had been provided.

The breach, he said, was short-lived and rapidly closed down by the Government Legal Department, but the judge said this was a ‘noteworthy and cautionary incident’ with lessons for all involved in litigation.

‘The record of events within this short judgment will also hopefully assist lawyers in reinforcing the importance of these embargoes and the consequences that can ensue if they are breached,’ added the judge.

‘But for the comprehensive nature of the advice and guidance provided by the Government Legal Department and their very prompt action, together with the full and frank apology by the individual guilty of breaching the embargo, the outcome in this case may have been very different and particularly serious for the individual concerned.’

The draft of the first judgment had been circulated in January to counsel and solicitors for the purposes of obtaining editorial changes. It had been made clear this was confidential and that neither the draft nor its substance should be disclosed.

The GLD circulated the draft to a ‘limited number’ of people at the Home Office, HMRC and National Crime Agency (the other defendant). It was again made clear in the email that the contents should not be shared.

Nevertheless, a policy officer at HMRC (to whom the draft judgment had been sent by the GLD) wrote to individuals in the Home Office, the Department for International trade, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office to say the result had been favourable.

His witness statement explained that ‘I did this because I was acting on the mistaken assumption as to the nature of embargo judgments generally, and due to pressure of work.’ He expressed his deep regret that at the time of receiving the embargo draft judgment he did not take the time to properly read the instructions which accompanied it.

This is the latest incident of a judgment embargo being broken by parties to a case. Dove even referenced one example where Sir Geoffrey Vos admonished litigants in a case for revealing the result of a case online the day before judgment was handed down.

Vos warned that ‘in future those who break embargoes can expect to find themselves the subject of contempt proceedings’.

 

This article is now closed for comment.