Open Justice board asks justice secretary for judicial reviews to be livestreamed

The lady chief justice’s new transparency and open justice board has asked the justice secretary to allow judicial reviews to be livestreamed - and potentially broadcast on television. 

The move follows the publication of proposed 'key objectives' for the board, which was announced by Lady Carr in April last year. These state that the principles of transparency and open justice 'require the proceedings and decisions of courts and tribunals to be open and accessible to the public and the media'. Practical measures to enable this should include ‘timely and effective access’ to information about pending cases as well as to core documents relating to the proceedings. 

However the board, chaired by Mr Justice Nicklin, notes that in making justice more transparent 'it cannot act alone'. It adds: ‘Many areas, that are critical for the success of the initiative, depend on collaboration with HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice and support from members of the judiciary at all levels. Any changes to procedural rules that apply in courts and tribunals are the responsibility of the relevant rules committees.’

The key objectives document acknowledges that ‘where a sufficiently weighty countervailing factor is convincingly established, courts and tribunals may be required to derogate from open justice. There is no doubt that doing justice must always come first’.

It adds: ‘In some areas, the ability of the courts and tribunals to deliver open justice is dependent upon the availability of resources and support from the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS.’

The closing date for responses is 28 February. A summary of responses received and the board’s finalised key objectives will be published at a later date.

Veteran legal journalist and Gazette columnist Joshua Rozenberg commented on the proposals: ‘I would expect most judges to offer cautious support for greater openness, in public at least. Any objections are likely to be expressed as practical rather than principled: “love to go along with this but I simply don’t have the time”. We can expect something similar from the Ministry of Justice: “love to go along with this but we simply don’t have the money”. So the board will have its work cut out in the coming years to win the support it needs.’