Y v HM Attorney-General [2003] EWHC 1462 (Ch) (24 June 2003)

Y v HM Attorney-General [2003] EWHC 1462 (Ch) (24 June 2003)

The court was entitled to pronounce judgment in private because the application did not determine civil rights, and even if it did, the private hearing was justified in the interests of justice, it was impractical to anonymise or abridge the judgment, and copies could be made available under CPR 5.4(2)(c), thus satisfying Article 6.1 ECHR requirements.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1462 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: X Charity Y; Defendant: HM Attorney-General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Application by Trustees for Court Directions (charity Trust) / Judgment on Whether Judgment Must Be Pronounced in Public
Outcome
Application granted; judgment pronounced in private was justified.
Legal Topics
Article 6.1 ECHR, Public Pronouncement of Judgments, Private Hearings, Trustee Applications for Directions
Charity Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Article 6.1 ECHR Public Pronouncement of Judgments Private Hearings Trustee Applications for Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X Charity Y

Claimant

HM Attorney-General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application by Trustees for Court Directions (charity Trust) / Judgment on Whether Judgment Must Be Pronounced in Public

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6.1 ECHR obliges the court to pronounce judgment in public when the hearing is held in private
  2. 2 Whether the application determined civil rights so as to engage Article 6.1 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court was entitled to pronounce judgment in private because the application did not determine civil rights, and even if it did, the private hearing was justified in the interests of justice, it was impractical to anonymise or abridge the judgment, and copies could be made available under CPR 5.4(2)(c), thus satisfying Article 6.1 ECHR requirements.

Court Disposition

Application granted; judgment pronounced in private was justified.

Orders

  • Judgment may be pronounced in private; copies may be made available in accordance with CPR 5.4(2)(c).