By Tony O'Riley And Sheila Mckenzie-
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the public should be allowed access to all documents placed before the court and referred to during a hearing, if applicants can show why they need them.
A judge in the case between Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UbK), five justices ruled that the court should be free to grant public access based on the constitutional principle of open justice.
Under the ruling, applicants will have to demonstrate how granting access will advance the open justice principle. The court will take account of factors such as national security, privacy interests or commercial confidentiality, but in general the public will be able to have access to all documents in relation to case belonging to a third party.
Lady Hale said: ‘The default position should be to grant access to documents placed before a judge and referred to by a party at trial unless there was a good reason not to do so. It should not be limited by what the judge has chosen to read.’
LANDMARK
The landmark ruling followed a challenge by both the appellant and the respondent to the Court of Appeal’s decision to grant the asbestos victims forum limited access to documents from a case were it was not party to proceedings.
The Supreme Court ruled that both the appeal from asbestos manufacturer Cape and cross-appeal from the forum were incorrect. Lady Hale said that the Court of Appeal did have inherent jurisdiction to make its order in support of the open justice principle. Lord Hale made reference to case law, citing I v Sussex Magistrates, Lord Heart Stewart CJ in McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259, he said it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done”.
Lady Hale effectively promoted the principle of open justice, which allows the public to go through details of evidence produced in bcourt cases
Graham Dring applied to the courts in 2017 to see documents which he believed would contain information about the dangers of asbestos and research carried out within the industry.
The Media Lawyers Association successfully applied to intervene in the case, after considering the implication of the first ruling that refused access to the court documents.
Partner of Leigh Day, Harminder Bains, initial application for copies of the documents was accompanied with an injunction in April 2017 to prevent them from being destroyed as had been “confidentially agreed” between Cape and its opponents.
Solicitor Harminder Bains, of London firm Leigh Day which represented the forum hailed the Supreme Court ruling has wide-ranging implications. She said: ‘This is a landmark decision for access to documents to non-parties and a victory for open justice. I hope it will help shed a light on all manner of issues, including the deadly asbestos industry.’
The forum says its aim is now to provide documents to interested parties, including academics, lawyers and members of the public.
OPEN JUSTICE
The Supreme Court urged the bodies responsible for framing court rules to ‘give consideration to the questions of principle and practice’ of open justice, and to begin a bwider consultation on how to apply rules in future.
The Asbestos Victims Support Group applied under CPR 5.4C to the court for access to all documents which were to be used in a trial where asbestos manufacturer Cape Intermediate Holdings was the defendant. The claims were settled after the trial ended, but before judgement was delivered. The support group, which was not party to the original proceedings, was initially successful , until the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Cape, limiting the disclosure to statements of case held by the court. It also ordering that the application for further disclosure be listed before the trial judge or another .
Monday’s ruling settled the score on that. The ruling coincides with an investigation by this publication into the slackness of court staff in neglecting guidance of Ministry Of Justice, after a number of court staff displayed ignorance about data protection laws.