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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll