A POLICE officer charged with drink driving can now be named after the Barnsley Chronicle successfully challenged attempts to keep the court case behind closed doors.
PC Nichola Garbett has pleaded not guilty to a single charge of driving while unfit through drink.
It is alleged she was arrested at Barnsley Police Station after driving to work on July 3.
The case has been adjourned with a trial date set for January 18.
South Yorkshire Police had fought to prevent the Chronicle from reporting her name, and her defending solicitor Alyson Goldsmith filed two different requests for reporting restrictions under section 11 and section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.
But both were rejected after objections from the Chronicle.
PC Garbett, an officer in South Yorkshire Police for 16 years, lives in Penistone but District Judge Adrian Lower instructed that the press must not disclose her precise address.
However he agreed with the Chronicle that it was in the public interest to disclose her name and her occupation.
The judge was presented with a letter from Chronicle editor Andrew Harrod saying that to grant anonymity to the officer was unfair to others accused of offences and identified in the media, and risked undermining the public’s faith in South Yorkshire Police, the court, and the justice system as a whole.
The defence case centred on Miss Garbett being well known in her community, to those on both ‘the right and the wrong sides of the law’ and that by publishing her name and address in the paper there was a risk of it becoming known to the ‘criminal fraternity’.
It was also argued that as a result of details being published, justice could be prejudiced by people speaking to Miss Garbett about the case.
Addressing Chronicle reporter Mike Cotton in court, the judge said: “If you are prepared to undertake that you would only identify, for the purposes of your reporting, Miss Garbett by her name and the fact that she lives in Penistone in Barnsley, then that seems to be a sensible compromise as far as I am concerned.”
He said there was little public interest in knowing exactly where Miss Garbett lives but acknowledged that the publication of addresses was helpful and important in preventing cases of mistaken identity in court reports.
However because the defendant is a police officer there was little risk of anyone of the same name in Penistone being falsely linked to the case.
“The real public interest is the fact that a serving police officer is accused of a criminal offence,” he said.
“There is a principle that justice is done publicly in this country, and it must be open justice.
“It is not justice done behind closed doors.”
He said there was a public interest in knowing who has been accused of criminal offences, stressing that Miss Garbett is merely ‘accused’ and therefore not guilty unless and until found guilty.
“I appreciate it is embarrassing for Miss Garbett but that is, as far as I am concerned, as far as it goes,” he said.
“Miss Goldsmith mentions that there is a risk to her if her details are published and a substantial risk of justice being prejudiced, I simply do not see any evidence for that contention other than pure assertion.
“Many people are accused of criminal offences, many people are no doubt very embarrassed that their details find their way into the papers as a result.
“One can think of some very recent, very famous examples of that.
“But that sort of situation does not entitle me to exercise my powers under section 11, or going forward section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, to prevent the press doing its job, which is to report fairly, openly and honestly about ongoing court proceedings.
“If Mr Cotton on behalf of his editor Mr Harrod is prepared only to publish Miss Garbett’s name and that she is a serving police officer in Barnsley and Penistone, then I cannot see that that would either affect the ability of the court to try the matter fairly, or hold serious risk of prejudice to a fair trial taking place.”
A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: “PC Garbett is currently suspended from duties on full pay pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.”
