header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 March 2024 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law , Public
printer mail-detail

Redaction & the duty of candour

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
164873
Nicholas Dobson surveys recent case law on the redaction of civil servants’ names
  • Redaction is justifiable only where it is necessary for good and sufficient reason.
  • Redacting civil servants’ names is ‘inimical to open government and unsupported by authority’—Bean LJ.

On 25 February 1980 (long before the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its provisions for public authority information disclosure), Permanent Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby, in episode 1 of the BBC’s Yes Minister declared: ‘Open government is a contradiction in terms. You can have openness. Or you can have government. You can’t have both.’

This came to mind when, on 2 February 2024, the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities v R (on the application of IAB & others) [2024] EWCA Civ 66 had to determine an important issue concerning redaction of civil servants’ names from evidence. This had been adduced by the defendant secretaries of state in a prospective challenge to the lawfulness

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll