This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Principles of Civil Procedure Notes

Pii Cm Ps Notes

Updated Pii Cm Ps Notes

Principles of Civil Procedure Notes

Principles of Civil Procedure

Approximately 184 pages

A collection of the best BCL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short, these are what we believe to be the strongest set of BCL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Principles of Civil Procedure Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Secret evidence: PII & CMPs

Types of secret evidence

  • Evidence unavailable to the court because kept secret (eg shielded by LPP)

  • Evidence available to court but unavailable to one or more of the parties (eg CMPs)

  • Evidence which is available to court & parties but withheld from public (eg in camera proceedings)

History

  • Crown Privilege (unreviewable) – Duncan v Cammell Laird [1942] (trials on new submarine design – submarine was submerged & never came back up – employees lost – families brought proceedings against shipbuilders for negligence in design of submarine – blueprints during wartime were sensitive – could backfire & frontfire D asserted Crown Privilege – that assertion is conclusive – not disclosed)

    • BUT Crown can get privilege just by asserting

    • Public benefits – particular parties suffer – is that distribution of burden appropriate?

      • Can’t assess liability & quantum without documents

      • CF if liability could be established another way & documents would show no negligence – Ds would suffer

  • Establishment of Public Interest Immunity – Conway v Rimmer [1968] (permitting non-disclosure for PII claim)

    • Balancing test – harm to public <> harm to administration of justice

    • Difficulty in case where – serious harm to public interest & cannot reach correct decision without evidence disclosed

  • Immunity over classes of documents effectively abolished in Ex parte Wiley (1994)

  • Carnduff v Rock (2001) — only case where PII asserted by Crown as defendant to civil claim, causing claim to be dismissed

    • grant of PII in action against police by informant alleging breach of alleged contract – could not be determined without looking at ‘contract’ – covered by PII

    • but AZ: alleged contract was illegal & unenforceable anyway?

  • Closed material proceedings: JSA 2013

    • Al Rawi (proceedings alleging torture – no common law power to conduct CMP in inherent power)

    • Rationale – better to decide with regard to all evidence while excluding parties, than by part evidence with some excluded for PII

Public Interest Immunity

= exception to disclosure

Tension with disclosure

  • In general court should have access to best evidence — any exclusion of relevant evidence calls for good justification: Lord Edmund-Davies in D v NSPCC

  • Art 6(1) ECHR — restriction on disclosure permitted if proportionate in pursuit of legitimate interest & subject to judicial scrutiny

Procedure

  • Application by party asserting PII — usually Minister as a party but could be anyone or even the court on its own motion: Rogers v Home Secretary (1973)

    • Minister can issue PII certificates – but have been heavily criticised: Al-Sweady (certificate over material that was already in the public domain — criticised by court and made indemnity costs order against gov)

    • Party seeking disclosure must show that docs would provide substantial support: Air Canada

      • Difficult if they haven’t seen them

      • But only need a real as opposed to fanciful chance: Goodridge (1999)

    • Balancing then conducted by the court

  • Special advocates can be appointed to help resolve the claim: AHK

  • Assertion that no relevant evidence

    • If party says that has no relevant evidence to disclose, then can’t go behind it

    • R v H per Bingham — may be necessary to have inspection of material by court, possibly aided by special advocate

  • Possible to make ex parte applications for disclosure of existence of docs & not serve order: CPR31.19(2) — ie total secrecy

  • May be that judge who inspects & then upholds PII claim should not determine substantive matter, as reasonable apprehension of bias: Ex parte Lilley (1995)

Balancing — Harm to public interest from disclosure <> harm to administration of justice generally and in the particular case by withholding

  • Public interest—

    • National security in time of war: Duncan v Cammell Laird (now CMPs available)

    • Proper functioning of public service: Re M (a minor)

    • Operation of local authority social work services: D v NSPCC (1978)

    • Ascertaining risk of harm to public interest on disclosure —

      • Ex parte Wiley (claim of PII in evidence collected under inquiry re police misconduct — asserted that disclosure would discourage further witnesses from coming forward but could not withhold from victims of police misconduct on this basis — that is the whole point of the inquiry — would discourage witnesses from coming forward as would be futile)

      • May depend on who has the documents as well as their contents: Lonrho (application for disclosure of tax documents balancing exercise in favour of disclosure)

  • <> Harm from withholding — to individual & administration of justice

    • EG whether marginal importance, whether can be obtained from other sources

  • Class-wide exemptions for PII require compelling public interest: Ex parte Wiley (allegations of police misconduct – documents subject to class-wide PII claim disclosure ordered – otherwise would have chilling effect)

    • Can refuse to disclose documents & existence of documents: CPR 31.19

  • Consequences of grant of PII

    • Documents can be redacted to provide a middle ground

    • If unsuccessful – open to all parties

    • If successful – inadmissible & can’t be relied on

      • Can also apply to withhold existence of documents as well as docs themselves

Waiver

  • PII cannot be waived as protects public interest — not a card for the gov to play as it wishes: Makanjuola per Bingham LJ

    • Follows that there is a duty to claim PII?

    • BUT can give weight to decision of government officials choosing to disclose voluntarily: Horseferry (CPS handing over documents to D that were potentially subject to PII claim)

Criminal contexts

  • Keane per Lord Taylor — if disputed material may prove defendant’s innocence, then balance comes down “resoundingly” in favour of disclosure

    • IE State can’t have both secrecy & prosecution — must either disclose or drop prosecution

  • R v H (charge of conspiracy to supply drugs — PII asserted over investigation if material weakens...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Principles of Civil Procedure Notes.