header-logo header-logo

19 September 2025 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 8131 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Media , Public , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

Open justice: an issue to address

Neil Parpworth considers when the court may consider it appropriate to limit the application of the principle of open justice
  • R v Spencer concerned an independent MP who was charged with two counts of sexual assault.
  • The chief magistrate exercised their common law power to make an order withholding the defendant’s residential address from being stated in open court.
  • The Recorder of Westminster, HHJ Baumgartner, confirmed that ‘there cannot be any public interest in the defendant’s home address being aired in open court and reported publicly by the press’.

The principle of open justice is of paramount importance in ensuring that justice is administered in an impartial, fair and transparent manner. A search of the Westlaw Legal database reveals that up to 6 August 2025, there were 377 cases in which ‘open justice’ was a subject/keyword. This of itself demonstrates how often the courts have been called upon either to uphold the principle, or to accept that in the particular circumstances of the case

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll