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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll