header-logo header-logo

Government could be forced to stop routinely redacting names

24 January 2024
Issue: 8057 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The Court of Appeal is hearing arguments this week in an important case on government transparency and the redaction of names

Human rights group JUSTICE, which is intervening in the case, will argue the government should not be able to routinely redact all names outside of the senior civil service from documents disclosed in judicial review proceedings. It contends this policy risks hiding the names of external contractors and political special advisors, as well as junior civil servants.

In November, the High Court agreed with JUSTICE’s arguments on redaction, in the case, which relates to wider issues about accommodation for asylum seekers, R (IAB & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin). The government appealed the decision.

The court referred, in its judgment, to Scott v Scott [1913] AC 493, where it was held that public trial is the best way to secure justice, even though it may cause some humiliation for those involved.

JUSTICE argues that names matter as they help the court grasp how policies and decision were made, and that a general policy of withholding names undermines the government’s duty of candour in judicial review cases. It points out that, as public officials, civil servants’ work is public, not private, and that fear of publicity alone is not a justification for redactions.

Ellen Lefley, lawyer at JUSTICE, said: ‘Judicial review only works if public bodies are candid; without that candour, the individual will rarely, if ever, be able to successfully understand and challenge state decisions.

‘Names are often vital for this—be they the names of outside consultants providing advice, or powerful special advisors pushing a certain course. By supplying courts with documents full of blacked-out names, the government would muddy the waters of state accountability to everyone’s detriment.’

Issue: 8057 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

Maria Karaiskos KC, recently appointed as the first female head of Church Court Chambers, discusses breaking down barriers, the lure of the courtroom, and the power of storytelling

1 Hare Court—Peter Mitchell KC & Amber Sheridan

1 Hare Court—Peter Mitchell KC & Amber Sheridan

Leading family law set strengthens ranks with high-profile additions

Thackray Williams—Jennifer Nicol

Thackray Williams—Jennifer Nicol

Firm bolsters commercial team with senior employment partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Kelvin Rutledge KC of Cornerstone Barristers and Genevieve Screeche-Powell of Field Court Chambers examine the Court of Appeal’s rejection of a discrimination challenge to Tower Hamlets’ housing database
Michael Zander KC, Emeritus Professor at LSE, tracks the turbulent passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill through the House of Lords in this week's issue of NLJ. Two marathon debates drew contributions from nearly 200 peers, split between support, opposition and conditional approval
Alistair Mills of Landmark Chambers reflects on the Human Rights Act 1998 a quarter-century after it came into force, in this week's issue of NLJ
In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ, Stephen Gold surveys a raft of procedural changes and quirky disputes shaping civil practice. His message is clear: civil practitioners must brace for continual tweaks, unexpected contentions and rising costs in everyday litigation
Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar 2025 and joint head of chambers at 4PB, sets out in this week's NLJ how the profession will respond to Baroness Harriet Harman KC’s review into bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct at the Bar
back-to-top-scroll