Alistair Sloan, Advocate

COPFS and FOI

September 29th, 2011

Yesterday the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) issued a wholly unsatisfactory response to a request for information made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. However, in terms of the law there is nothing that can be done about it.

On 13 August 2011 a request was made to the COPFS for all of the information it had released under FOISA and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004. The COPFS does not as a matter of routine operate a disclosure log where it makes available the information it has released under the Freedom of Information legislation in Scotland. This is something that is considered as good practice by the Commissioner, but few authorities actually operate such a log. The What Do They Know (WDTK) website is a good place to effectively create a disclosure log by default as all responses are made publically available instantly. It was with this background that the request of 13 August was made.

Unfortunately the COPFS confused this request with a request made for statistics relating to the offence of Hamesucken. It replied to the latter request, but did not the former. This mistake was only discovered when a request for review was made under the provisions of FOISA. On 28 September 2011 the COPFS responded withholding two disclosures it had previously made.

This withholding of information is rather odd as information released under FOI is a disclosure to the public and not just the individual who made the original request. As can be seen from the response the information was disclosed to the other applicants “exercising their rights under FOISA”. Thus that disclosure was made to the public at large and not simply those individual applicants. If personal information is now involved, as the COPFS have advanced, then this must also have been the case at the time of the original disclosure and would therefore have been exempt under FOISA when it was originally requested. The justification advanced by the COPFS in their substantive response has absolutely no basis in law. Essentially, once a disclosure has been made under FOISA then the information can’t really then be later exempt in another request. This is because the information is now considered to be in the public domain.

The problem with this request arises with other provisions within FOISA. Section 48 of the Act means that the COPFS cannot be investigated by the Scottish Information Commissioner under Section 47(1) – an application for such an investigation would be invalid. The only exception is where the request relates to information held by them as a result of the Lord Advocate’s position as a Scottish Minister under the Scotland Act 1998. This request clearly does not fall into that exemption.

The result of this general invalidity of applications to the Commissioner in relation to the COPFS means that there is legally nothing that can be done regarding this request now. Technically the COPFS response issued on 28 September 2011 is a response to the request for review. It satisfies the requirements of FOISA to be such. The COPFS have reached a decision on the initial application. In the view of the commissioner that is the only option open to an authority where the complaint in a review is a failure to reach a decision on the request.

This creates a problem and it is certainly not a position that works in terms of the spirit of the legislation. Something really ought to be done to rectify this wholly unsatisfactory situation. The only options open are to rely on the goodwill of the COPFS to act in a way that is in line with the spirit of the legislation and look again at its decision or to begin involving MSPs to contact the COPFS in the hope that this persuades them to reconsider their decision. It is certainly hoped that the COPFS will act in a way that could be described as in line with the spirit of the legislation and conduct what would technically be a second request for review without the need to involve elected members of Parliament.

While it is certainly not suggested that the COPFS have acted improperly and tried to consciously withhold information, this situation highlights how they could do so if they wished. Simply by ignoring a request for information and a request for review they effectively kill the request. They could of course (and again it is not suggested that they have acted in this way) apply exceptions that would never be upheld by the Commissioner in response to a request for review based upon a technical aspect as a way of preventing disclosure, there being no recourse for the applicant.

This is a situation that cannot be allowed to exist. The position is wholly out of step with the spirit of the legislation. There are two key amendments that could be made that would address this issue while keeping the general principles behind the inclusion of the COPFS in s.48. Those two amendments would be:

1) To permit the Scottish Information Commissioner to conduct a limited investigation into the COPFS where the complaint is a failure to respond to a request for information and a request for review. The Commissioner should have the power to issue a decision notice compelling the COPFS to issue a substantive response in the way he can other public bodies subject to FOISA where it is found they have simply not complied with Sections 10(1) and 21(1) of FOISA. Of course, it’s not practical to have him investigate himself and certainly it would be hoped that the commissioner’s office would never fail to comply with these technical aspects. In light of this the amendment should only comply to s.48(b) and (c).

2) To permit an applicant a right to request a second internal review, on the same terms as is currently contained within the Act, where following a request for review into a failure to respond within the required timescales the authority (including the Commissioner) seeks to apply exemptions. Of course, this would not prevent the authority from deliberately withholding information if it wanted to do so, but would provide a legal route for genuine errors in the application of exemptions to be rectified.

These would be wholly sensible amendments to make to the Act and would not overly burden these public authorities. It would provide a satisfactory resolution for the situation that is currently in existence based on the way in which the legislation is currently drafted.

The Scottish Government has promised to make sensible amendments to strengthen the Act and it is hoped that these amendments will feature in that Bill when it goes before Parliament during the 2011-12 year.
Hampshire Fire and Rescue: reason for marking as “Private and Confidential”

September 21st, 2011

Hampshire Fire and Rescue have provided a comment regarding the curious paragraph that appears in their Freedom of Information Act responses. They claim that it is to assist the service in remaining applicant blind by ensuring that the correspondence is only dealt with by their FOI Officer. They appear to, but have not expressly, refute the suggestion that the request is so that they can try and exclude correspondence recieved in relation to FOI requests from future FOI requests.

It is rather odd that Hampshire Fire and Rescue feel that by including such a paragraph and getting applicants to mark their correspondence as “Private and Confidential” that this will ensure that the authority is applicant blind. Applicants are, of course, obliged by section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide thier real name in correspondence so having knowledge of the name of the applicant is something that doesn’t appear to affect the “applicant blind” part of the process. Indeed knowing the name is essential if an authority is going to be able to enforce the “vexatious and repeated requests” or the “aggegated costs” provisions. It also appears to be approached from a Data Protection point of view, which appears just as odd as the applicant blind approach.

The response provided by Hampshire Fire and Rescue can be read below:

Thank you for your email. The statement you refer to is added to all of our Freedom of Information correspondence to ensure that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service Information Compliance Officer and her colleagues are the recipient of all requests and subsequent correspondence that may be associated with a request under the Freedom of Information Act. All FoI requests are applicant blind to the person(s) providing the information, and this is the reason why this statement is added, as it will ensure that the requesters details remain confidential. For responses made publically available through the website “Whatdotheyknow.com” we provide the same level of confidentiality when handling a request. For those requests from private individuals then their personal information will also remain confidential, and this is to comply with data protection. HFRS publish all FoI requests on our website, but remove all personal information, regardless of the source of the request.
Hampshire Fire and Rescue: Please mark as “Private and Confidential”

September 21st, 2011

I was looking through the most recently successful FOI requests on Whatdotheyknow.com when I discovered this response from Hampshire Fire and rescue Service. The response curiously contained the following paragraph:

Any future correspondence you may have with HFRS in relation to this matter should be marked “Private & Confidential” and sent to the Information Compliance Officer at the above address.

It struck me as somewhat odd that in a response to a request for information made to a public authority under statutory provisions designed to promote openness and tranparency that a public authority would include such a request. I went and had a look through the other responses from Hampshire Fire and Rescue available on the WDTK website and discovered that it was indeed standard practice for them to include this request in their responses.

I have had a think as to why they might include such a response but keep coimg back to the idea that maybe it is a way of trying to exclude correspondence from release under future FOI requests. This would, of course, be in complete contravention of the spirit of the Freedom of Information legislation. It would be counter to the principles of transparency and openness. Indeed, if it was an attempt to circumvent the Act and prevent disclosure of correspondence it would, morally speaking, be a very serious issue.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service have been contacted seeking their comment on the purpose of this request contained within these responses. They have also been asked directly whether it is an attempt to exclude correspondence from release under future requests for information. Any response provided by Hampshire Fire and Rescue will be published in full on this site.
Riot sentences too harsh?

August 17th, 2011

There has been a lot of debate and discussion in the last week about the sentences being handed down by courts around England in connection with the mass-scale disturbances that took place over the space of four days last week.

The Courts have been handing down what appear to be, on the face of things, some very tough and overly harsh sentences which appear to be reflecting the public mood and especially the mood of the Government. More than 60% of those charged have been remanded into custody pending their cases being dealt with in the courts; this is significantly higher than normal. Last year only about 10% of all defendants were remanded in total. Some commentators have questioned this much wider than normal use of remand, and even gone as far as to suggest that the benches may even be trying to use remand as part of the punishment. There is, in law, a presumption in favour of bail being granted. There are no offences where the opposite is true. It is for the Crown to prove that the defendant should not be granted bail and instead be held in custody. Holding a person in custody, particularly before they have entered a plea of guilty or been found guilty by the Court is a serious matter. It is removing the liberty of individuals who are legally still innocent of any crime and are only suspected of having committed the crimes alleged of them. Therefore, it is not something that should be entered into lightly. Indeed it is not something that magistrates or judges would enter into lightly.

Yesterday two teenagers were sent to prison for four years over Facebook events they had created in order to try and incite riots. These sentences do appear overly harsh, but the fact that both defendants received the same sentence when the facts were really quite different is also of concern. In one case it is reported that the defendant not only created the Facebook event, but had turned up at the location detailed in the event as the meeting point. While it is reported that the other individual removed the event and apologised before police came to arrest him. If those facts are indeed true then there is a higher level of culpability in the first case and it would ordinarily be expected that this would lead to a more severe sentence than the second defendant.

Sentencing is not all about punishment, retribution and deterrence, but this is what sentences being handed down around England in relation to the mass public disorder appear to be about. There is another important element to the sentencing and that is proportionality. In order for the sentence to be proportionate the context in which that offence was committed must be looked at.

The offences with which people have been charged in relation to the mass public disorder are quite rightly being aggravated by the context of mass public-disorder. It would be reasonable to expect that people who are convicted or plead guilty to these offences to be treated by the courts in a more serious way.

The ordinary rules of sentencing should not be set aside in extraordinary circumstances. In order for justice to be justice at all it must be fair to all parties, the defendant included. In order that it is fair magistrates and judges should follow the same guidelines and processes as they would normally and not simply ignore them. Indeed, in England and Wales courts are bound by Section 172 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which requires them to have regard to any definitive sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The definitive guidance issued by the Council are published online.

Many commentators are of the opinion that the Court of Appeal is going to be rather busy as they review decisions not to grant bail and decisions on sentences handed down by the courts in relation to the mass-disorder of last week. Court time is already at a premium and it is going to become filled with cases where defendants are appealing their sentences.

One factor that has been highlighted on a number of occasions has been the all night sittings of Magistrates’ Courts. Legitimate questions exist regarding the quality of the judgment of Magistrates and of representation (on both the Crown and Defence sides of the court) when cases are being dealt with in the early hours of the morning.

In Scotland a number of persons have been charged with offences relating to inciting riots on Facebook. It will be interesting to observe how the Scottish Courts handle these cases if and when the cases come before them for sentencing. Scotland didn’t see any of the scenes of mass-scale public-disorder that provide the backdrop and context for the sentences being handed down in Scotland. There does not appear to be the same level of public mood as there is in England, which is no doubt fuelled by the disorder. Therefore, it might be reasonable to expect a more considered and measured approach to sentencing. That said; each of the accused persons have been remanded into custody so hopes for a more measured and sensible approach to sentencing in these cases might be no more than wishful thinking.
Scottish Government drops FOI Court of Session appeal

July 16th, 2011

It has been reported that the Scottish Government has discontinued its case before the Court of Session in relation to a requirement placed upon it by the Scottish Information Commissioner to release information withheld by it which had been requested by Mr Simon Johnson, the Scottish Political Editor at the Daily Telegraph.

On 17 February 2009 a request for information was sent by Mr Johnson to the Scottish Ministers requesting information regarding the revised local income tax plan and the Ministers refused to disclose the information citing the exemption covering information gathered for the formation of Scottish Administration policy. Mr Johnson appealed to the commissioner following the Scottish Government maintaining the exemption following a review. The Commissioner found that the public interest of maintaining the exemption was outweighed by the public interest in releasing the information and ordered its disclosure. The Scottish Government appealed to the Court of Session.

The contents of the documents the Scottish Government were seeking to keep secret were leaked which meant that the appeal was no longer required. The appeal has cost the taxpayer £100,000 which is not an insignificant amount of money, especially in a time of Government cuts and could have probably been better spent on other things, but instead the Scottish Government decided to spend it on keeping information secret from the public.

The Commissioner has in the past commented on the performance of the Scottish Ministers in complying with the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and frequently when looking through the recent decisions of the Commissioner there can be decisions found where the Scottish Ministers are party. Personal experience coupled with this leads me to believe that the Scottish Government actively seek to keep information from the public and prefer to operate the business of government in private.

This looks to have been a complete waste of taxpayer’s money to prevent potentially embarrassing details from being released to the public. The Commissioner has been very clear that exemptions are not to be used to prevent potentially embarrassing information from being disclosed.

It’s time that the Scottish Government is more open and more transparent rather than only releasing the information that benefits them and shows them in a good light. The people of Scotland have a right to know what is going on inside Government.

The Scottish Information Commissioner is still considering an application regarding information withheld by the Scottish Government in relation to the post-Cadder debacle and readers of Avizandum Times will be the first to know what the Commissioners decision is when that is released.

Decision 025/2011 Mr Simon Johnson of the Daily Telegraph and the Scottish Ministers
Freedom of Information and Cllr Bob Myles of Angus Council

July 15th, 2011

A local authority leader has decided to attack journalists and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Bob Myles who has since 2007 led Angus Council attacked the use of FOI by journalists in a response issued relating to the amount of money spent on Credit Cards released under the FOI regime.

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force in 2005 and provides people with a right to request information from any public authority covered by the Act. Local Authorities are covered by the terms of the FOI legislation. The Act is important in the fight to have openness and transparency from public officials and is equally important in ensuring that public officials can be held accountable by the public.

The press have an important role in keeping the public informed and holding public officials to account for the benefit of the public and Freedom of Information allows them to perform this function. In a time of austerity where people are having to endure job losses and cuts in the provision of council services it is important that local authorities are held to account over how they spend the limited resources they have. Couple this with the reasons given for the cuts coming out from Westminster debts owed by councils are one important factor in ensuring that Councils are spending money wisely.

Cllr Myles reveals that the Council spent £2000 responding to one FOI request. If they did then I congratulate them on going the extra mile and providing a response to that individual. However, the law did not require them to do so. Under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 a public authority can refuse to comply with a request for information if the cost to the authority in complying is excessive. The cost limit is currently set at £600 by the Scottish Ministers. Essentially, if the Council did spend £2,000 responding to an FOI request then they would have been perfectly within their rights to refuse that request under the exemption provided by Section 12.

It has been reported that Mr Myles suggested that following the hacking scandal at the News of the World that journalists would now abuse the FOI legislation because they can no longer obtain information illegally and that this would come at an “excessive cost” to local authorities.

Cllr Myers is reported as having said:

It’s lazy – whenever they can’t find a story they just shove in an FOI request. I’m all for being open and honest with the public but when people start querying insignificant amounts it’s a waste of everybody’s time.

If these comments are true they are truly disgraceful comments to come from an elected official. Every penny spent by councils is public money and an insignificant amount spent may be significant depending upon what it was spent on. For example, £10 is a small amount of money, but when it was discovered that the husband of a serving Home Secretary had spent £10 on viewing two adult films which had then “inadvertently” been claimed for in parliamentary expenses by the Home Secretary, that became a significant matter. How then do we define what is a significant amount and more importantly who defines it? I suggest that we can’t, and even if we could that it would be unwise to do so.

A spokesperson for the council was unable to comment as to whether the comments were accurate as they came directly from Mr Myles. I will continue to try and contact Cllr Myles to confirm whether these comments attributed to him are true and if he has anything else to add.
Injunctions, Super-injunctions and Privacy: Part 2

May 25th, 2011

Part 2 of my blog series on Injunctions, Super-Injunctions and Privacy will focus on the issue of Super-injunctions. I think it would be prudent to once again state what an Injunction is and what a “super-injunction” is as there is a lot of confusion, especially in the wider mainstream media as to what each is.

An Injunction is an order issued by the Court that prevents a person from doing a particular act. So that could be naming the victim in criminal proceedings involving children under 16 or the victim in a rape case. Moving away from criminal law it could be an injunction to prevent an anticipatory breach of contract or to prevent the printing in the media of untruths about a person.

A super-injunction is an injunction that has an additional layer of protection attached to it whereby the media cannot even report that the injunction exists. It is not one where anonymity has merely been granted, that is an anonymity injunction. The media are free to report about injunctions that have been granted where one party remains anonymous (provided that they do not break the terms of the injunction such as revealing who the anonymous individual is), they are not free to report that a super-injunction exists. The wider public should not know that one of these injunctions exists.

In the case of the footballer whose name is widely known but in terms of the injunction is only known as CTB this was not a super-injunction. Had it been a super-injunction the media would not have been able to report that an injunction had been granted. The injunction merely prevented the media from revealing the name of the footballer in question.

Having read the judgment of the Court and the reasons why such an injunction was granted I must say that I find no real reason was to why the Injunction should not have been granted. The narrative of the case suggests that the allegations that appeared in the paper were false and indeed that blackmail (a criminal offence) may have occurred. The media cannot be allowed to print libellous and defamatory stories about a person. The case of CTB is not a case where the footballer in question has done something wrong and is now trying to prevent it from coming out in order to protect his reputation, but rather is preventing what appear to be libellous statements about him being printed.

I am in no doubt in my mind that the ability of a person whether they be in the public eye or not to prevent what they deem to be libellous and defamatory information about them from being printed is a good thing. How would you feel if the papers suddenly printed a story about you that suggests you acted unfaithfully towards your spouse, that in your mind is untrue and the evidence that exists was staged and part of a blackmail plot? One would imagine you would want to do everything in your power from stopping such a story being printed. Granted, the chances of that happening to someone outside of the public eye are remote, but it could be demonstrated equally as well with any number of more realistic situations for the average member of society.

The problem I have with super-injunctions is the secrecy of them. They cannot be open to scrutiny as they are entirely secret. They go beyond granting anonymity to the Claimant and mean that nobody outside of the parties, Counsel, Solicitors and Judge should know of its existence. I am sure there are perfectly good reasons for such injunctions to exist in terms of National Security and such like, but when it comes down to protecting the private life of individuals in the public eye I believe that is a step too far. They prevent, for example, a party to the injunction raising the issue with their elected representatives should they wish representation by their MP or local councillors.

As I have said in part 1 and will explore in more detail in part 3, privacy is essential in our lives. Each one of us, whether we are in the public eye or not, are entitled to some level of privacy. The right to a private and family life is important, but you will just have to wait for my thoughts on that.

[Part 1]

—-
NOTE: While the name of the footballer in question is in the public domain, the injunction remains in force. Any comments posted on this blog that name the footballer in the CTB v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS case will either be deleted or redacted. This blog does not endorse the wilful breaching of court orders.
Injunctions, Super-injunctions and Privacy: Part 1

May 23rd, 2011

There has been a lot in the media of late over so called super-injunction. As is the case with all legal stories the newspapers continually distort the true picture to whip up a frenzy which results in Parliament looking at what is essentially a non-issue. I am going to attempt to add my voice to the many already out there on the internet.

An injunction, or if you are in Scotland an interdict, is a court order which prevents someone from doing something. For example, one could seek an injunction against one’s neighbour to prevent them from using their property in a way that prevents one from enjoying one’s own property or to prevent a newspaper from printing untrue stories about oneself. A super-injunction, and I’m not aware of there being any “super-interdicts” so this would appear to be an English only issue, is a special type of injunction that the wider public are not supposed to know exists – that is what makes it “super”.

The case of CTB v Imogen Thomas is not an example of a super-injunction, but rather the bog standard injunction described above. It does not have the extra layer of protection that meant its very existence was not supposed to be known by the wider public. Injunctions cover a wide array of things and could be used to prevent doctors from carrying out a medical procedure to being used as a pre-emptive way to prevent a breach of contract from occurring. They do not exist, as the media suggest, purely to stop celebrities from having details of their private lives splattered across the pages of a national newspaper (although that is one way they can be, and have been, used).

Injunctions and super-injunctions, particularly relating to celebrities, have sparked a debate on privacy, which has really only been of concern to those working within the English legal system. When considering the issue of privacy one must turn to look at section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This places upon the court a clear burden to weight the public interest with the right to free expression. It has been said often before that what interests the public is not always the same as what is in the public’s interest. While the public very well may be interested in which celebrity is having an affair with who (and personally I cannot understand why that would be of any interest to anyone other than the parties involved) is it really in their interest to know? What benefit is there to the public knowing that Celebrity A is having an affair with Celebrity B? It is not for me to attempt to define what “public interest” means; that is either down to the Court or Parliament to do. However, some examples of what I would consider to be in the public interest would be:

A Government Minister acting corruptly in the exercise of his duties as a Minister – clearly there is benefit to the public of knowing such information and a Government Minister in such a position should not be able to prevent details of their corrupt actions being revealed to the wider public by way of a court order.

An MP acting in breach of the criminal law – I think that most would agree that a Member of Parliament breaking the Criminal Law is in the public interest and that the media should be free to report on this (in a way that does not prejudice any future criminal proceedings)

A company dumping toxic waste in an unsafe and illegal way – again, a clear example of something that would be in the public interest and that should not be able to be kept private by way of a court order preventing publication of details in the media.

To follow those three examples of things that, in my opinion, would be within the public interest some examples of what I believe the public might be interested in, but are not really in the public interest:

Celebrity A and Celebrity B (both single) have been seen in a restaurant having a romantic meal – the public might very well be interested in this, but the media should be able to be prevented from printing the details if Celebrity A, Celebrity B or both want to keep it private.

Celebrity A and Celebrity B (inclusive of politicians) are having an affair –again, the public might very well be interested in the lives of celebrities, but is it really in the public interest to have family disputes publicised in the paper? The effect of affairs can be bad enough, especially for any children involved, without having to see the details of it plastered in every newspaper, on every TV news bulletin and all over the radio for the next six weeks? I don’t think so.

Not every case is that straight forward, but I think it gives a flavour of the types of situations I am thinking of when looking at whether or not something is in the public interest or not. As I have already said above it’s not my place to try and put a definition on “public interest” – that must fall to Parliament and the Courts to define and interpret.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he does not like the idea of judges making the law and doing Parliament’s job for them. I would agree that I do not like such a situation, but that is not what we have here (although I do feel it necessary that the Courts can provide an equitable remedy where none exists in law – where the Courts do this though it then falls to Parliament to deal with the gap that has arisen in the law by passing legislation). We have judges interpreting the Human Rights Act, a piece of primary legislation passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. It is the job of the Courts to interpret legislation passed by Parliament.

Privacy is an important aspect of human life. None of us wants our every move or the problems within our family plastered across the news. Some might argue that by being in the public eye celebrities should expect such things, or that celebrities are quite happy to use the media when it suits them. I do not subscribe to this view. Each us has a right to decide what we disclose and what we do not disclose to those around us. Not one of us is without a secret or two. There should be as little interference with that right as possible and freedom of expression is not an excuse for publishing private details about a person’s personal life that someone has sold to you or that you have discovered by investigating a person. Only where it is in the public interest should a person’s privacy be placed after freedom of expression. The media do not have a right to publish what they want about who they want regardless of the wider consequences. When they decide to print photographs of a person having an affair there are many innocent people who are affected – the innocent partner(s) who have been faithful, any children that may exist (and that may well include nieces and nephews).

Exactly what is in the public interest to reveal about a celebrity or not is a difficult question. By the nature of their position in public they are inevitably going to be role models for younger people in society. So, if I were to be caught speeding by the police in my car it would most probably not be in the public interest for the press to report that. However, if a premier league footballer is caught speeding then that very well may be in the public interest to report.

However, I can think of only a few situations where it might be in the public interest to report the affair of a high profile public figure. An example might be where such an affair could compromise the political process (e.g. a Government Minister having an affair with someone who has or is seeking a Government contract – especially where that Government Minister is or may be responsible for awarding said contract).

Generally, I am not in favour of restricting the press. However, free expression is not an absolute right (and cannot ever be) and is subject to exceptions. The privacy of a person, whether they are in the public eye or not, where there is no real public benefit to knowing should be respected and in my view there should be a presumption in favour of protecting that persons privacy if they so wish.

I do have concerns about so called “super-injunctions” as in my view no court order should prevent a person from discussing a matter with their elected representatives. Such injunctions are, thankfully, very rare. I will go on to explore what super-injunctions and privacy in more detail in blog posts over the coming days.

—-
NOTE: While the name of the footballer in question is in the public domain, the injunction remains in force. Any comments posted on this blog that name the footballer in the CTB v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS case will either be deleted or redacted. This blog does not endorse the wilful breaching of court orders.
Justice on BBC Four

January 28th, 2011

BBC Four broadcast an excellent and really quite fascinating documentary yesterday evening on the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Justice in the United Kingdom is a public affair. Up and down the country, with few exceptions, the public can wonder into any court room while the court is sitting and watch proceedings. It has been a foundation of our judicial system for many years.

When the Supreme Court opened for business the Court has always been of the view that it wanted to be as open and as accessible as possible. It is fitted with permanent cameras that record proceedings and one would imagine these proceedings are capable of being shown on live television should the need ever arise. The presence of these cameras in court meant that during this documentary we were able to see scenes of the Supreme Court in action. In our other courts filming is generally banned. I can only think of a handful of examples of television cameras being allowed inside Court rooms in Scotland.

The documentary itself was a huge step forward in judicial openness. It was really quite fascinating to find out more about four of the Justices of the Supreme Court and hearing them talk candidly about the decision making process.

To hear the Justices describe their frustrations over some of the judgments they have been forced to arrive at given the framing of Statutes as passed by Parliament was really quite remarkable. It has always been something I have admired about our Judiciary. The way they arrive at judgments is quite remarkable. The level of detachment from personal feelings required is quite significant and they cannot always, as much as they would often like to, arrive at a conclusion that they personally feel is fair, but rather have to arrive at one which is as fair as it possibly can be given the statutory provisions they are being asked to interpret.

This programme is just one in a brilliant season on BBC Four just now looking at Justice. The programming continues next week with many programmes which look fascinating and probably intellectually challenging.

I am looking forward to the remainder of the season on BBC Four and would welcome more of this programming on the BBC, especially the main terrestrial BBC Channels.

The Open University has an interesting experiment called “What’s your verdict?” running. The experiment can be reached by following The Open University link on the BBC Four Justice website. I would highly recommend both websites. All the programmes shown to date as part of the Justice season can be watched on BBC iPlayer and I would recommend watching any you haven’t already seen.

BBC Four showed an excellent and really quite fascinating documentary yesterday evening on the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Justice in the United Kingdom is a public affair. Up and down the country, with few exceptions, the public can wonder into any court room while the court is sitting and watch proceedings. It has been a foundation of our judicial system for many years.

When the Supreme Court opened for business the Court has always been of the view that it wanted to be as open and as accessible as possible. It is fitted with permanent cameras that record proceedings and one would imagine these proceedings are capable of being shown on live television should the need ever arise. The presence of these cameras in court meant that during this documentary we were able to see scenes of the Supreme Court in action. In our other courts filming is generally banned. I can only think of a handful of examples of television cameras being allowed inside Court rooms in Scotland.

The documentary itself was a huge step forward in judicial openness. It was really quite fascinating to find out more about four of the Justices of the Supreme Court and hearing them talk candidly about the decision making process.

To hear the Justices describe their frustrations over some of the judgments they have been forced to arrive at given the framing of Statutes as passed by Parliament was really quite remarkable. It has always been something I have admired about our Judiciary. The way they arrive at judgments is quite remarkable. The level of detachment from personal feelings required is quite significant and they cannot always, as much as they would often like to, arrive at a conclusion that they personally feel is fair, but rather have to arrive at one which is as fair as it possibly can be given the statutory provisions they are being asked to interpret.

This programme is just one in a brilliant season on BBC Four just now looking at Justice. The programming continues next week with many programmes which look fascinating and probably intellectually challenging.

I am looking forward to the remainder of the season on BBC Four and would welcome more of this programming on the BBC, especially the main terrestrial BBC Channels.

The Open University has an interesting experiment called “What’s your verdict?” running. The experiment can be reached by following The Open University link on the BBC Four Justice website. I would highly recommend both websites. All the programmes shown to date as part of the Justice season can be watched on BBC iPlayer and I would recommend watching any you haven’t already seen.