Craig Murray and the limits of anonymous reporting
Not naming someone is not always enough. The Murray judgments examine identifying information in context—and distinguish deliberate publication from an intention to break the law.
Important correction to the supplied research notes: the 2022 appeal judgment explicitly rejects a strict-liability description. The legal explanation below distinguishes the mental element from the objective identification-risk assessment.
The protected trial participants are referred to as complainers in the Scottish judgments.
HM Advocate v Craig Murray [2021] HCJ 2
The High Court, comprising Lady Dorrian, Lord Menzies and Lord Turnbull, found Murray in contempt on 25 March 2021 over publications connected with Alex Salmond’s trial. The relevant order dated 10 March 2020 prohibited identifying the complainers. Salmond’s acquittal and Murray’s contempt proceedings concern different questions.
[1] Introduction; discussion of the 10 March order; conclusionThe court considered material in context, not just whether a name appeared. Information that allows a section of the public to identify a protected person can be enough; it need not identify them to everybody. The risk was assessed objectively. This page explains that principle without reproducing the details used to identify individual complainers.
[1] §§54–58Submissions and findings are attributed separately.
On 11 May 2021 the court imposed eight months’ imprisonment, initially delaying the warrant for three weeks to allow an appeal. Its statement distinguishes the established breach of the anonymity order from other allegations of contempt it rejected.
[2] Opening statement and summary of findingsMurray’s counsel argued that a fine would be proportionate, invoking freedom of expression and comparisons with other media contempts. The court treated the repeated risk to protected complainers as serious and concluded custody was required. These are competing submissions and the court’s determination—not a finding that all critical reporting is contempt.
[2] Comparative justice; proportionality; determinationThe later reasoning matters when summarising the test.
The Appeal Court explained that the mental element relates to deliberate publication. A publisher need not intend to commit contempt for deliberately published material to breach an order. The separate objective question is whether the publication creates a real or substantial risk of identification. The court expressly rejected describing this as strict liability.
[3] §§60–63Craig Murray v HM Advocate [2022] HCJAC 14
On 25 March 2022 the court rejected Murray’s challenge to the finding and sentence. Its opening records that he had served about four months in custody. We do not infer the legal mechanism of release or current status from that sentence alone.
[3] §1; conclusions and §82Independent Tribunal analysis · questions for evaluating the system.
Protecting people who give evidence and allowing scrutiny of a prosecution are both important. Relevant questions include whether an order is clear, whether enforcement is consistent across publishers, whether risk is demonstrated in context, and whether punishment is proportionate. Raising those questions does not require exposing protected identities.
PPT concerns a civil anonymity order in England and Wales; Murray concerns contempt in Scotland. Permission to report one order is not permission to disclose identities protected by another. This is a historical case study, not a statement that all Scottish anonymity law remains as it stood in 2021. Later changes and other statutory protections require their own review.
Sources are numbered in order of first citation; repeated citations keep their number. Source links open in a new tab. A source’s type matters: a campaign statement or personal account is not a judgment. The review date records this page’s source check, not a guarantee of completeness.
View the maintained source · Submit a source or correction. Do not post private case material publicly.