header-logo header-logo

12 September 2025 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8130 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Open justice: tested

229565
Care proceedings and public interest were centre stage in a recent case involving the BBC. Nicholas Dobson reports
  • X and another v The BBC and others [2025] concerned the limits of the open justice principle, specifically in the context of care proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
  • The court found that the BBC’s objective wasn’t to scrutinise the way courts decide cases or to help the public to understand how the justice system works. So the purposes behind the its application weren’t connected with the open justice principle

The Irish judge James Mathew (1830-1908) once tartly observed: ‘In England, justice is open to all—like the Ritz Hotel.’ But justice being available to all (or otherwise) is a different question from the openness of the justice system itself.

Open justice requires public entitlement to see how justice is done. Courts should therefore hold hearings in open court, enabling public access. Press and others are entitled to report on legal proceedings, and judicial decisions should be publicly available. Courts must apply their

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