The Court of Appeal is hearing arguments this week in an important case on government transparency and the redaction of names
Human rights group JUSTICE, which is intervening in the case, will argue the government should not be able to routinely redact all names outside of the senior civil service from documents disclosed in judicial review proceedings. It contends this policy risks hiding the names of external contractors and political special advisors, as well as junior civil servants.
In November, the High Court agreed with JUSTICE’s arguments on redaction, in the case, which relates to wider issues about accommodation for asylum seekers, R (IAB & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin). The government appealed the decision.
The court referred, in its judgment, to Scott v Scott [1913] AC 493, where it was held that public trial is the best way to secure justice, even though it may cause some humiliation for those involved.
JUSTICE argues that names matter as they help the court grasp how policies and decision were made, and that a general policy of withholding names undermines the government’s duty of candour in judicial review cases. It points out that, as public officials, civil servants’ work is public, not private, and that fear of publicity alone is not a justification for redactions.
Ellen Lefley, lawyer at JUSTICE, said: ‘Judicial review only works if public bodies are candid; without that candour, the individual will rarely, if ever, be able to successfully understand and challenge state decisions.
‘Names are often vital for this—be they the names of outside consultants providing advice, or powerful special advisors pushing a certain course. By supplying courts with documents full of blacked-out names, the government would muddy the waters of state accountability to everyone’s detriment.’
