Key Facts
- •The case concerns the redaction of civil servants' names (below Senior Civil Service level) from disclosed documents in judicial review proceedings.
- •The Appellants (Home Department and Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretaries of State) routinely redacted these names, citing concerns about confidentiality and potential harassment.
- •The Respondents (Claimants) argued that this redaction practice violated the duty of candour.
- •The First Instance Judge (Swift J) ruled against the Appellants, finding that routine redaction was impermissible.
Legal Principles
Duty of Candour
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1409; Re Downes’ Application for Judicial Review [2006] NIQB 77; Lewis LJ, Judicial Remedies in Public Law (6th Edition, 2021)
Disclosure in Judicial Review
Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2007] 1 AC 650
Redaction in Civil Litigation
GE Capital Corporate Finance v The Bankers Trust [1995] 1 WLR 172; Shah v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1154
Open Justice
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417; CPR 39.2(4)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld Swift J's decision, finding that routine redaction of civil servants' names below the Senior Civil Service level is impermissible in judicial review proceedings. The duty of candour requires transparency, and routine redaction undermines this principle. While redaction may be justified in exceptional circumstances (e.g., national security, personal safety), it cannot be a default position.