header-logo header-logo

Where open justice may be closed…

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll