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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll