header-logo header-logo

Government loses transparency & redactions case

22 November 2023
Issue: 8050 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
The routine redaction of names of civil servants below the senior ranks in documents disclosed to court is not justified, the High Court has held

In R (IAB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin), Mr Justice Swift considered whether such redactions were permissible, as a matter of routine, and what procedure parties should follow when seeking to disclose redacted documents.

The government’s redactions extended to the names of external contractors and political special advisors as well as junior civil servants.

Intervening, law reform charity JUSTICE argued that names matter as they often help the court grasp how policies and decisions were made. Therefore, a general policy of withholding names undermined the government’s duty of candour.

It argued that, as public servants, the work of all civil servants is manifestly public not private. It therefore opposed the government’s suggestion that junior civil servants had a ‘reasonable expectation of confidentiality’ in their work and could bypass the usual rules for requesting anonymity.

Agreeing with both points, Swift J held routinely hiding details that would aid understanding of documents is antithetical to the duty of candour, and routine redaction could risk undermining confidence that appropriate legal scrutiny is taking place under fair conditions. Swift J held that fear of publicity alone was not a justification for redactions.

On the procedure to be followed, Swift J said: ‘A party disclosing a redacted document ought to explain the reason for the redaction at the point of disclosure.

‘The explanation need not be elaborate; the simpler and shorter it can be the better. The explanation ought to be such that it affords the receiving party a sensible opportunity to decide whether to apply for disclosure of the document, unredacted. The approach taken by the Secretaries of State in this case, the provision of single word explanations, "relevance", "privilege" and so on, will rarely be sufficient. All will depend on context.’

JUSTICE chief executive, Fiona Rutherford said: ‘For democracy to work, we must be able to check and understand government decision making—[this] judgment safeguards the fairness and transparency of this process.’

Issue: 8050 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
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

Cripps—Simon Main

Cripps—Simon Main

Firm strengthens residential property team with partner hire

Hugh James—Danielle Cahill

Hugh James—Danielle Cahill

Private wealth disputes team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
In a very special tribute in this week's NLJ, David Burrows reflects on the retirement of Patrick Allen, co-founder of Hodge Jones & Allen, whose career epitomised the heyday of legal aid
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
back-to-top-scroll