Evans, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence

Evans, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence

The court held that, due to changes in sensitivity and the absence of continuing justification, certain parts of the closed judgment (Digest A and some additional material) should now be made public. The court found no sufficient reason to open up the most sensitive material, upholding the PII claim for those parts....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen (on the application of Maya Evans); Defendant: Secretary of State for Defence; Intervener/applicant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Applications Regarding Closed Judgment and Confidentiality Undertakings
Outcome
Applications allowed in part; PII claim upheld in part; undertakings varied in part; other relief refused.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure of Closed Judgments, Confidentiality Undertakings, National Security, Judicial Review Procedure
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Open Justice Public Interest Immunity Disclosure of Closed Judgments Confidentiality Undertakings National Security +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of Maya Evans)

Claimant

Secretary of State for Defence

Defendant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Intervener/applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Applications Regarding Closed Judgment and Confidentiality Undertakings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of a previously closed judgment should now be made public due to changes in sensitivity of the material
  2. 2 Whether confidentiality undertakings given by the claimant and her legal representatives should be discharged or varied
  3. 3 Whether related underlying evidence should be disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, due to changes in sensitivity and the absence of continuing justification, certain parts of the closed judgment (Digest A and some additional material) should now be made public. The court found no sufficient reason to open up the most sensitive material, upholding the PII claim for those parts. The claimant and her legal representatives were released from confidentiality undertakings only to the extent of the newly disclosed material and any documents already in the public domain. The court declined to order disclosure of underlying evidence or to give general guidance or directions for future review of closed judgments.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part; PII claim upheld in part; undertakings varied in part; other relief refused.

Orders

  • Public disclosure of specified parts of the original closed judgment as annexed to the judgment.
  • Release of the claimant and her legal representatives from confidentiality undertakings only to the extent of information now disclosed and any documents already in the public domain.