The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The redactions purported to have been made on the basis of irrelevance, legal privilege and the Law Officers' advice convention [!]. The petitioners did not know whether these redactions had been properly made. No claim of public interest immunity had been advanced. It was a breach [!] of the right to a fair trial for the respondent [UK "government"] to produce redacted documents.
The BBC, the Times and the Sun made an application for access to the four documents produced by the respondent, the pleadings and the written arguments for the Lord Advocate and the respondent. This was on the basis of the principle [!] of open justice (Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings  3 WLR 429 and R (Guardian News and Media v Westminster Magistrates' Court  QB 618). There required to be public scrutiny of the way in which the courts decided cases. The public had to be able to understand why decisions had been taken. It was difficult, if not impossible, to know what was going on without the written material.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 18 47 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 13 30 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 56 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 8 70 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 4 18 comments
by Bernard - Aug 27 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 30 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1847 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 1330 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 870 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 756 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 418 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3014 comments
by Bernard - Aug 275 comments
by gmoke - Aug 27