|
Government
guidance on the application of this exemption gives
examples of some aspects of the administration of
justice that could be prejudiced by the disclosure
of information:
| • |
the
operation of the judicial appointments system; |
| • |
the
ability of a judge to deliver justice effectively,
fairly and fearlessly in a particular case; |
| • |
the
ability of a judge, or of the judiciary, to perform
this function more generally; |
| • |
the enforcement of sentences and the execution
of judgements; |
| • |
the ability of litigants to bring their cases,
or a particular case, to court; |
| |
the
prospects of a fair trial taking place; |
| • |
the
effectiveness of relationships between different
agencies involved in the administration of justice
(for example premature disclosure of plans to
redistribute functions between different agencies
could lead to a breakdown of co-operation); |
| • |
a
range of other matters and systems that support
the administration of justice (e.g. the operation
of the legal aid system, or IT systems - disclosure
of the security systems on computer systems would
facilitate unauthorised access and thereby make
them vulnerable to interference); |
| • |
the
maintenance of an independent and effective legal
profession |
It
then sets out guidance on the application of the public
interest test
"The
public interest in the administration of justice
is very high. It is moreover a public interest which
is explicitly recognised by the courts as fundamental
to their work and as permeating their approach to
the common law and to statutory interpretation.
Not only, therefore, is this a public interest which
the courts will expect government to respect highly,
it is a public interest which the courts will expect
government to acknowledge to be the courts' particular
domain, a matter on which the courts themselves
are ultimately the constitutional arbiters within
the law.
Although, therefore, in common with other prejudice-based
exemptions, the nature, degree and likelihood of
prejudice to the administration of justice will
be an essential part of weighing the balance of
public interest for and against disclosure, the
respect owed by government departments to the proper
administration of justice indicates a need for special
care in concluding that the public interest in avoiding
prejudice is outweighed. Circumstances where prejudice
in a particular case is outweighed by the prevention
of prejudice more generally will be one example
where the balance might come down in favour of disclosure.
For example it may be necessary to disclose information
relevant to the safety of individuals even if this
causes the collapse of a case before the courts.
There may be other circumstances, particularly at
the administrative margins rather than the judicial
centre of the system of the administration of justice,
where the operational impact of a prejudicial disclosure
is more diffuse, and considerations of administrative
transparency weigh more strongly. Precisely because
prejudice to the administration of justice comprehends
such a wide range of circumstances, the specific
factors relevant to individual cases may be particularly
important to the operation of this exemption.
|
