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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll