Do the government’s proposals on justice & security challenge the principle of open justice, asks Tim Suter
The principle of open justice is a fundamental tenet of our legal system. It encompasses the right of parties directly involved in legal proceedings, together with the wider public and the media, to attend legal proceedings. In the words of Lord Atkin (Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322, [1936] 1 All ER 704): “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful…comments of ordinary men.” The rationale of a public hearing ensures confidence in the administration of justice and is a form of democratic control and, with well-trodden caveats to protect sensitive evidence, informs and energises how our justice system operates.
The government’s recently published Justice and Security green paper challenges this long-held presumption with proposals that would permit, in prescribed circumstances, closed material procedures in civil proceedings and inquests; in other words secret hearings where evidence is introduced by one party, relied upon by the court, but not disclosed to the other party. The
