header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 November 2020 / David Burrows
Issue: 7909 / Categories: Features , Public , Privacy
printer mail-detail

Where open justice may be closed…

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll