header-logo header-logo

05 November 2020 / David Burrows
Issue: 7909 / Categories: Features , Public , Privacy
printer mail-detail

Where open justice may be closed…

31235
A fine balance? David Burrows reflects on balancing public interest, the administration of justice & confidentiality

Why open justice? Three answers will suffice for now; but first to be quite clear what is meant by ‘open justice’. It has three related, but separate, aspects:

  • whether the public, especially the media, are permitted to come into court;
  • whether and documents or other information (here called ‘material’) can be released to any of the public (a) before a hearing; and (b) afterwards; and
  • whether any names such as of parties, witnesses, public bodies or opinion witnesses can be released.

Of these three I will concentrate on the first two. To the question ‘why open justice’ replies—mostly in relation to the second —release of material–issue, answers have included, first Jeremy Bentham, quoted by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417at 477 who said: ‘Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll