header-logo header-logo

09 December 2016
Issue: 7726 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Coroner

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Surrey [2016] EWHC 3001 (Admin), [2016] All ER (D) 144 (Nov)

The Administrative Court granted an application permitting non-disclosure of documents on the ground that disclosure would damage the public interest. In granting the application, the court held that it had jurisdiction to consider an application for public interest immunity, and that it was appropriate to exercise it, in a case where the defendant coroner had asked for disclosure of sensitive material, and the secretary of state had refused to disclose that material because disclosure could have damaged national security.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Caroline Barker & Tom Walker

Browne Jacobson—Caroline Barker & Tom Walker

Browne Jacobson recruits regulatory experts Caroline Barker and Tom Walker to bolster health, government and corporates practices

Jackson Lees Group—Paul Harrison, Helen Innes & Sorcha McMullan

Jackson Lees Group—Paul Harrison, Helen Innes & Sorcha McMullan

Partner and paralegals bolster clinical negligence team at Jackson Lees Group

Stone King—Manchester

Stone King—Manchester

Stone King triples Manchester footprint with office move as law firm’s rapid growth journey continues

NEWS
Group claims, disputed costs and judicial recruitment dominate the latest courtroom round-up
Landlords face fresh registration duties as procedural reforms reshape the civil courts
Sanctions can derail commercial disputes long before judgment, making early planning essential
Pressure is mounting for a dedicated UK AI law, but deciding what it should achieve remains the central challenge
Legal professional privilege has checked the SRA’s investigative powers, exposing difficult questions about tackling suspected abusive litigation
back-to-top-scroll