Key Facts
- •Judicial review claim against the Secretary of State for Defence regarding refusal to grant prior authority for publication of a book by a former UK Special Forces member.
- •The book details the claimant's involvement in a 2019 terrorist attack.
- •The Defence Secretary refused authority due to national security concerns.
- •The application concerns whether the hearing should be held in public or private.
- •The defendant's policy is neither to confirm nor deny activities of UKSF.
Legal Principles
Strong presumption in favour of public hearings.
CPR 39.2(1)
Open justice principle: Public scrutiny of court decisions and understanding of the justice system.
Cape Intermediate Holdings v Dring [2019] UKSC 38
Exceptions to open justice if necessary to secure justice.
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417
Article 10 ECHR: Freedom of expression subject to limitations for national security.
Article 10 ECHR
Court must consider less intrusive alternatives (anonymisation, partly open/closed hearings, etc.).
CPR 39.2
Outcomes
The entire hearing will be held in private.
Public hearing would reveal sensitive information, defeating the object of the hearing and potentially damaging national security. The risk of inadvertent disclosure outweighs the limited public interest in a partially open hearing.