Y v HM Attorney-General

Y v HM Attorney-General

The judge was entitled to pronounce judgment in private because the application did not determine civil rights, and even if it did, the circumstances justified a private hearing and judgment under Article 6.1 ECHR due to the interests of justice and the impracticality of anonymisation.

Parties
Claimant: 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
Judgment pronounced in private was justified and permitted under Article 6.1 ECHR.
Legal Topics
Article 6.1 ECHR, Public Pronouncement of Judgments, Private Hearings, Trustee Applications for Directions
Human Rights Law Charity 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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 Does Article 6.1 ECHR require the judgment to be pronounced in public when the hearing is held in private?
  2. 2 Does an application by trustees for directions determine civil rights under Article 6.1 ECHR?

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to pronounce judgment in private because the application did not determine civil rights, and even if it did, the circumstances justified a private hearing and judgment under Article 6.1 ECHR due to the interests of justice and the impracticality of anonymisation.

Court Disposition

Judgment pronounced in private was justified and permitted under Article 6.1 ECHR.