Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T22:02:56.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Emma Cunliffe
Emma Cunliffe*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia Faculty of Law
*
Correspondence: cunliffe@law.ubc.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent years have seen an increase in the number and scope of non-publication orders and other limits on open justice, an increase in the number of statutes that regulate or threaten open justice and the articulation of an Australian constitutional principle (of institutional integrity) that has the potential to protect some aspects of open justice. The purposes and values of open justice are, however, rarely examined in a comprehensive or theoretically-informed manner. This article provides a theory of open justice which accounts for its heterogeneous nature. Australian judicial approaches to the substance, limits and constitutional dimensions of open justice are analysed in light of the purposes and values of open justice, and a comparison with the much more coherent Canadian approach is supplied. The author concludes that threats to open justice are best managed by an analytical framework which systematically identifies both the benefits of open justice and the countervailing values that are at stake in a given case, and which seeks to provide maximum protection to all of these values on a case-by-case basis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 385 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research that forms the basis for this article was funded in part by a grant supplied by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. I am very grateful to the anonymous reviewer, Benjamin Goold and Susan Boyd for constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript and to the editors of the Federal Law Review for their assistance. Any errors which remain are my own.

References

1 Section 2 of this article explains why, properly understood, there are multiple principles of open justice.

2 The manner in which media reported the OJ Simpson trial and the James Bulger case are notorious examples. See Joseph, Jaconelli, Open Justice: A Critique of the Public Trial (Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar, appendix. In Australia, some aspects of the media coverage of Lindy Chamberlain's trial provide examples of sensational reporting; but certain journalists and newspapers consistently criticised the rush to condemn Chamberlain. See also Emma, Cunliffe, Weeping on Cue: The Socio-Legal Construction of Motherhood in the Chamberlain Case, (LLM Thesis, University of British Columbia, unpublished, 2003)Google Scholar.

3 See Bentham's discussion of the relationship between publicity, privacy and secrecy. Jeremy, Bentham, ‘Rationale of Judicial Evidence’ in John, Bowring (ed), The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Vol. VI (London, 1843) 351–2Google Scholar.

4 See, eg, the Criminal Procedures Act 2009 (Vic) pts 4.4, 4.7 and Magistrates’ Court policies promulgated under that Act; Supreme Court of British Columbia, Court Record Access Policy (2011) <http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/media/>); Prue Innes (chair), Report of the Review of Suppression Orders and the Media's Access to Court Records and Information (Australia's Right to Know, 13 November 2008) <http://www.australiasrighttoknow.com.au/files/docs/Reports2008/13-Nov-2008ARTK-Report.pdf>.

5 See Innes, above n 4, ch 2; Lord Neuberger MR, Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions: Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice (Master of the Rolls, 20 May 2011) <http://www.judiciary.govuk/media/media-releases/2011/committee-reports-findings-super-injunctions-20052011>).

6 ‘Privatisation’ commonly refers to the transfer of government functions and responsibilities to the private sector. However, it may also include the adoption of government practices that shield public processes from scrutiny. The latter definition is more pertinent in this context. Susan, B Boyd, ‘Challenging the Public/Private Divide: An Overview’ in Susan, B Boyd (ed), Challenging the Public/Private Divide: Feminism, Law, and Public Policy (University of Toronto Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

7 See, eg, Kent, Roach The Unique Challenges of Terrorism Prosecutions: Towards a Workable Relation between Intelligence and Evidence (Research Studies of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, Supply and Services, 2010)Google Scholar; Eric Metcalfe, Secret Evidence (Report, Justice, 10 June 2009) <http://www.justice.org.uk/resources.php/33/secret-evidence>; Andrew, Lynch and George, Williams, What Price Security? Taking Stock of Australia's Anti-Terror Laws (University of New South Wales Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

8 See, eg, Kimber v Press Association [1893] 1 QB 65; Re Vancouver Sun [2004] 2 SCR 332; In the Matter of an Application by Chief Commissioner of Police (Vic) (2005) 214 ALR 422; Neuberger, above n 5.

9 See Neuberger, above n 5, 15; Edmonton Journal v Alberta [1989] 2 SCR 1326.

10 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Pt I of the Constitution Act 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K), c.11 ss 2(b), 7; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953) as amended by Protocol 14 arts 6 (right to a fair and public hearing), 10 (freedom of expression) as re-enacted in Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) c 42, sch 1.

11 Bowring, above n 3, 351–72; see also Garth, Nettheim, ‘The Principle of Open Justice’ (1984) 8 Tasmanian Law Review 25Google Scholar.

12 See Ronald, Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, 1977) 26-27Google Scholar; see also John Fairfax Publications v Ryde Local Court [2005] NSWCA 101.

13 In suggesting that open justice is best understood as a set of principles, I am influenced by Daniel Solove's argument that privacy is a set of rights united by a series of family resemblances, but lacking a universal core. See Daniel, Solove, ‘Conceptualizing Privacy’ (2002) 90 California Law Review 1087Google Scholar.

14 David, M Paciocco, ‘When Open Courts Meet Closed Government’ (2005) 29 Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 385Google Scholar, 389–90.

15 Jaconelli, above n 2, 353.

16 Ibid 353–5.

17 Ibid ch 9.

18 Ibid 355.

19 See, eg, Andrew, D Goldstein, ‘Sealing and Revealing: Rethinking the Rules governing Public Access to Information Generated through Litigation’ (2006) 81 Chicago-Kent Law Review 375Google Scholar (and other articles in that volume of the Chicago-Kent Law Review); Arthur, R Miller ‘Confidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the Courts’ (1991) 105 Harvard Law Review 427Google Scholar.

20 Goldstein, above n 19; Miller, above n 19; Caron, Myers-Morrison, ‘Privacy, Accountability and the Cooperating Defendant: Towards a New Role for Internet Access to Court Records’ (2009) 62 Vanderbilt Law Review 921Google Scholar; Peter, A Winn, ‘Online Court Records: Balancing Judicial Accountability and Privacy in an Age of Electronic Information’ (2004) 79 Washington Law Review 307Google Scholar.

21 Goldstein, above n 19; Miller, above n 19. In Australia, see Sharon, Rodrick, ‘Open Justice, the Media, and Avenues of Access to Court Documents’ (2006) 29 University of New South Wales Law Journal 90Google Scholar.

22 See especially Myers-Morrison, above n 20; Winn, above n 20.

23 Bentham adopts a similar characterisation, Bowring, above n 3, 355.

24 Roach, above n 7, 78–9.

25 So-called super-injunctions raise similar concerns. See Neuberger, above n 5, ch 2.

26 In Australia and the United Kingdom, the number of such orders has greatly increased in the past few years. Ibid; Innes, above n 4.

27 For example, a sexual assault complainant's identity. Christine, Boyle, ‘Publication of Identifying Information about Sexual Assault Survivors: R v Canadian Newspapers Co Ltd’ (1989) 3 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 602Google Scholar. An Australian example is supplied by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91X which prohibits publication of the name of an applicant for a protection visa.

28 See, eg, Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506.

29 Sharon, Rodrick, ‘Open Justice and Suppressing Evidence of Police Methods: The Position in Canada and Australia, Part One’ (2007) 31 Melbourne University Law Review 171Google Scholar.

30 Kimber v Press Association [1893] 1 QB 65, 75.

31 In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and others [2010] 2 AC 697, 708 [1] (Guardian News and Media).

32 Ibid 725 [68]–[69].

33 [1913] AC 417 (House of Lords).

34 Ibid 435.

35 Ibid 438.

36 Ibid 442.

37 Ibid 445–6.

38 Ibid 476.

39 Ibid 482–3.

40 Discussed below, page 10.

41 R v Kwok (2005) 64 NSWLR 335.

42 BUSB v The Queen (2011) 80 NSWLR 17; see also R v Macfarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan (1923) 32 CLR 518; Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506.

43 See, eg, the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), which has codified the grounds on which non-publication and suppression orders may be issued by NSW courts and tribunals while reserving the inherent jurisdiction of courts to regulate other aspects of their procedure.

44 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181, 192 [7] (French CJ and Kiefel J). See also South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1, 47 [69] (French CJ), 62–3 [131]–[132] (Gummow J), 103 [264] (Heydon J); International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319, 352–4 [50]–[52] (French CJ); 367 [98] (Gummow and Bell JJ); 385 [155] (Heydon J).

45 (1996) 189 CLR 51 (Kable). See further Ayowande A McCunn, ‘The Resurgence of the Kable principle: International Finance Trust Company’ (2010) 17 James Cook University Law Review 110, 111–14.

46 Dickason v Dickason (1913) 17 CLR 50, 51.

47 Ibid; see also Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495.

48 Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495, 505–7.

49 Ibid, 520 (Gibbs J), 532–3 (Stephen J).

50 (1986) 5 NSWLR 465.

51 Ibid 476–7.

52 Ibid 477. See also Ex parte Queensland Law Society Inc [1984] 1 Qd R 166, 170 and Herald and Weekly Times v A (2005) 160 A Crim R 299, 304 [25].

53 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 465, 481 (Fairfax v Police Tribunal).

54 Ibid 477; see also Raybos Australia Pty Ltd v Jones (1985) 2 NSWLR 47, 57 (Raybos v Jones).

55 See also Witness v Marsden (2000) 49 NSWLR 429, 460–1 [140]–[144] (Heydon JA).

56 (2004) 61 NSWLR 344, 353 [19] (Fairfax v District Court).

57 [2001] NSWSC 1024, [20]. See also Raybos v Jones (1985) 2 NSWLR 47.

58 (2004) 61 NSWLR 344, 360 [59]. See also David Syme & Co Ltd v General Motors-Holden's Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 294, 300, 306 (Syme v GM-Holden’s).

59 (2005) 64 NSWLR 335, 342 [19] (Rothman J agreeing) (Kwok).

60 Ibid 342 [21] (Hodgson JA), 345 [34] (Howie J); see also Witness v Marsden (2000) 49 NSWLR 429.

61 R v Kwok (2005) 64 NSWLR 335, 343–4 [29].

62 Ibid 344 [30]. In R v Nantahkhum (2012) 6 ACTLR 228 Refshauge J applied the principles set out in Kwok to suppress publication of the names of witnesses who had paid for the sexual services of trafficked women.

63 [2005] 1 AC 190.

64 [2012] NZCA 188.

65 Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) s 8.

66 See eg, Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2012] NSWCCA 125, [8] (Bathurst CJ), [46]–[51] (Basten JA) (Fairfax v Ibrahim); Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345, [45] (Tobias AJA).

67 Fairfax v Ibrahim [2012] NSWCCA 125, [55], citing Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 15, 26 (Mason CJ).

68 [2011] NSWCA 345, [38].

69 In addition to cases already discussed, see Da Silva v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 106.

70 Herald and Weekly Times v A (2005) 160 A Crim R 299, 306 [30].

71 (2010) 30 VR 248. See also General Television Corporation Pty Ltd v DPP (2008) 19 VR 68, which considered publication bans issued in relation to a fictionalized account of events relevant to a trial then proceeding in the Victorian Supreme Court (the Underbelly TV series).

72 News Digital Media Pty Ltd v Mokbel (2010) 30 VR 248, 266 [68].

73 Ibid, 272 [94].

74 See Syme v GM-Holden's [1984] 2 NSWLR 294; R v Wise (2000) 2 VR 287, 296 [26]; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181.

75 (2005) 62 NSWLR 512 (Fairfax v Ryde Local Court).

76 See above text accompanying notes 50–5.

77 Fairfax v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512, 521 [29]–[31].

78 Ibid 521 [32], 526 [65].

79 (2000) 2 VR 346.

80 See for example, eisa Ltd v Brady [2000] NSWSC 929, [18]–[21]. Interestingly, this argument for restricting open justice was made and rejected in Kimber v Press Association Ltd [1893] 1 QB 65. The Court of Appeal considered that a fair and accurate report of court proceedings would make it clear that no final decision had been rendered.

81 For example, this author applied unsuccessfully for copies of the hand-up brief used by the Crown in the committal hearing of Carole Louise Matthey. The case against Matthey for allegedly killing four children was withdrawn after the trial judge excluded much of the Crown evidence against her. See R v Matthey (2007) 17 VR 222. Important questions about prosecutorial discretion and expert witnesses in this case remain unstudied because access to the court records has not been granted (although access to transcripts was provided).

82 [1984] 2 NSWLR 294, 310.

83 (2005) 62 NSWLR 512, 525 [60] (citation omitted). See also eisa Ltd v Brady [2000] NSWSC 929, [36]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2001) 51 NSWLR 643. This formulation may explain judicial reticence to offer access to documents that have not yet been used in court, as on a narrow reading providing such access may not have a purpose relating to the legal system. However, such an interpretation depends on how broadly one conceives of the legal system and whether, for example, it extends to pre-trial activities and the operation of organisations such as police and prosecutors.

84 See eg, eisa Ltd v Brady, [2000] NSWSC 929; Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680; News Digital Media Pty Ltd v Mokbel (2010) 30 VR 248; General Television Corporation Pty Ltd v DPP (2008) 19 VR 68.

85 (1995) 57 FCR 512, 514. See also News Digital Media Pty Ltd v Mokbel (2010) 30 VR 248, 258–9 [35].

86 See eg, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich, (2001) 51 NSWLR 643; Tuqiri v Australian Rugby Union Ltd [2009] NSWSC 781; cf eisa Ltd v Brady, [2000] NSWSC 929.

87 See Tuqiri v Australian Rugby Union Ltd, [2009] NSWSC 781; Llewellyn v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 293.

88 Dickason v Dickason (1913) 17 CLR 50.

89 See, eg, Polyukovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501; Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84; Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455; Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1. See Fiona, Wheeler, ‘Due Process, Judicial Power and Chapter III in the New High Court’ (2004) 32 Federal Law Review 205Google Scholar; Cheryl, Saunders, The Constitution of Australia: A Contextual Analysis (Hart Publishing, 2011) ch 6Google Scholar.

90 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1, 27 (Brennan, Deane, Dawson JJ). Saunders’ observation that the separation of powers is often invoked in Australia to resolve questions that would in other jurisdictions be resolved using constitutional rights applies well to open justice. See Saunders, above n 89, 185.

91 Kable (1996) 189 CLR 51, 117.

92 Ibid 98 (Toohey J), 106–8 (Gaudron J), 121 (McHugh J), 131–2 (Gummow J). See further Saunders, above n 89, ch 6; Enid, Campbell, ‘Constitutional Protection of State Courts and Judges’ (1997) 23 Monash University Law Review 397Google Scholar.

93 Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2006) 228 CLR 45, 76 [63].

94 K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501, 530 [90]; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181, 201–2 [30]; see also Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575, 618 [104]–[105] (Gummow J).

95 (2009) 240 CLR 319.

96 See further Wheeler, above n 89.

97 K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501; International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission, (2009) 240 CLR 319; SouthAustralia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1; Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1.

98 International Finance Trust Co Ltd v NSW Crime Commission, (2009) 240 CLR 319; South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181.

99 (1991) 172 CLR 460, 496.

100 Ibid 496–7.

101 (1995) 184 CLR 348, 379.

102 K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501. The majority held that the procedure infringed the open justice principle. However, properly interpreted, the legislation was not incompatible with the exercise of federal judicial power.

103 (2005) 214 ALR 422.

104 Very little information is given about these investigative practices in the judgment, other than that they relate to ‘scenarios’ used to help obtain admissions from suspects.

105 Innes, above n 4.

106 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506. The Act has now been repealed and replaced with the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 (Vic).

107 Only the first two grounds are considered in this article. The Court accepted that cases may arise in which the implied freedom of political communications could apply to communications about the courts and their processes if a discussion of legislative or executive action was implicated and the matter had a sufficient connection to a federal issue.

108 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 [80].

109 (1976) 134 CLR 495.

110 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 [91].

111 Ibid [20] (French CJ).

112 Ibid [22].

113 Examples of such blanket prohibitions include s 121 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (banning publication of information that identifies a party or witness to a family court proceeding); s 10 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) (providing that a criminal proceeding should be closed to the general public when the accused is a child); and s 195 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) (prohibiting publication of questions ruled improper or otherwise not permitted by a trial judge. There may well be good reasons to impose blanket — or at least prima facie — prohibitions in such cases.

114 See eg, Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons (1980) 147 CLR 39 (the ‘Defence Papers Case’); In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and others [2010] 2 AC 697.

115 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c. 11.

116 Attorney General of Nova Scotia v MacIntyre [1982] 1 SCR 175.

117 Ibid 181.

118 Ibid 183.

119 Ibid 185.

120 [1989] 2 SCR 1326.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid [7].

123 Ibid [17].

124 Ibid.

125 [1994] 3 SCR 835.

126 Reflected, eg, in Syme v GM-Holden, [1984] 2 NSWLR 294, 306. The UK may also be moving away from a hierarchical approach — see Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 [55]–[56].

127 Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [1994] 3 SCR 835.

128 Ibid [4]. Compare the limited and critical discussion of public interest provided in General Television Corporation v DPP (Victoria) (2008) 19 VR 68, [39]–[43].

129 Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [1994] 3 SCR 835 [52].

130 [1996] 3 SCR 480.

131 R v Mentuck [2001] 3 SCR 442.

132 Ibid [37]–[38]. See also R v ONE [2001] 3 SCR 478.

133 Compare Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 345.

134 Re Vancouver Sun [2004] 2 SCR 332, [23] and [25].

135 Ibid. See also Ruby v Canada (Solicitor-General) [2002] 4 SCR 3.

136 Re Vancouver Sun [2004] 2 SCR 332 [52].

137 Toronto Star v Ontario [2005] 2 SCR 188 [30].

138 Re Vancouver Sun [2004] 2 SCR 332.

139 [1991] 1 SCR 671.

140 See, eg, Canadian Newspapers Co v Canada (Attorney General) [1988] 2 SCR 122.

141 Canadian Broadcasting Corp v Canada (Attorney General) [2011] 1 SCR 19.

142 Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [1994] 3 SCR 835; R v Mentuck [2001] 3 SCR 442.

143 Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée v 2858-0702 Québec Inc, [2001] 2 SCR 743 [72]; R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp (2010) 102 OR (3d) 673 (Ontario Court of Appeal).

144 See especially Attorney General of Nova Scotia v MacIntyre [1982] 1 SCR 175; Vickery v Nova Scotia [1991] 1 SCR 671.

145 Individual Australian judges have also recognized this special role, as detailed in section 3.b.i. However, other Australian cases challenge this view, and it cannot be said that the Australian case law as a whole recognizes a special role for the media vis-à-vis the purposes of open justice.

146 Lac d'Amiante du Québec [2001] 2 SCR 743; Edmonton Journal v Alberta [1989] 2 SCR 1326.

147 In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and others [2010] 2 AC 697.

148 Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495; K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501; Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506. 149 Paciocco, above n 14, 386.

149 Paciocco, above n 14, 386.