Public-interest immunity

Last updated September 30, 2022

Public-interest immunity (PII), previously known as Crown privilege, is a principle of English common law under which the English courts can grant a court order allowing one litigant to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the public interest. This is an exception to the usual rule that all parties in litigation must disclose any evidence that is relevant to the proceedings. In making a PII order, the court has to balance the public interest in the administration of justice (which demands that relevant material is available to the parties to litigation) and the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of certain documents whose disclosure would be damaging. PII orders have been used in criminal law against large organised criminal outfits and drug dealers where the identity of paid police informants could be at risk.

Seeking the order

An order that PII applies would usually be sought by the British government to protect official secrets, and so can be perceived as a gagging order. Where a minister believes that PII applies, he signs a PII certificate, which then allows the court to make the final decision on whether the balance of public interest was in favour of disclosure or not. Generally, a court will allow a claim of PII without inspecting the documents: only where there is some doubt will the court inspect the documents to decide whether PII applies.

Originally, a government minister was under a duty to advance a PII point where PII could be relevant, and the court took a certificate from a minister claiming PII as final and conclusive. However, over time, there has been an increase in both the ability of a minister to make a disclosure, notwithstanding the potential application of PII, and the ability of the courts to review a claim of PII. In Conway v Rimmer [1968], the House of Lords held that the courts retained the final decision on whether PII should be upheld, and, in R v Chief Constable of West Midlands, ex parte Wiley [1995], the House of Lords decided that a minister could discharge his duty by making his own judgment of where the public interest lies (that is, to disclose or to assert PII). In practice, this is thought to have led to a reduction in the number of cases when PII is asserted.

History

PII was previously known as Crown Privilege, and derived from the same principle as the sovereign immunity of the Crown from prosecution before the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. However, PII is not limited to the Crown (see the NSPCC case mentioned below), and cannot be waived save in exceptional circumstances.

A number of PII certificates were signed in relation to the prosecutions of individuals involved in the Matrix Churchill "Arms to Iraq" case, a subject that was subsequently investigated in the Scott Report.

Examples

Duncan v. Cammell Laird and Co. Ltd [1942] AC 624. The submarine HMS Thetis sank on 1 June 1939 during sea trials with the loss of 99 lives. The families of the sailors who had been killed in the disaster claimed damages from the builders, Cammell Laird. The House of Lords upheld a certificate issued by the Admiralty claiming PII in relation to the plans of the submarine. The House of Lords also held that the courts should take a PII certificate at face value.
Tomlinson v HMG. In 1995, former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson attempted to bring MI6 before an employment tribunal to seek compensation for unfair dismissal. MI6 argued that this would "damage national security" and obtained a PII from the then Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind to block Tomlinson's application. Tomlinson argued vociferously that the real reason that MI6 obtained the PII certificate was to cover up their incompetent and dishonest personnel management.
Conway v Rimmer [1968]. The House of Lords held that the courts are the final arbiters of whether PII applies or not.
D v. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171. The NSPCC investigated an allegation that D was mistreating her child. D claimed damages, and sought documents from the NSPCC to identify who had made the allegation. The House of Lords upheld the NSPCC's claim of PII, since its legitimate role in protecting the welfare of children was clearly in the public interest and would be threatened by disclosure.
Air Canada v. Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 AC 384. A group of airlines claimed that the British Airports Authority had unlawfully increased landing fees at the instigation of a government minister. The minister disclosed some documents, but claimed PII in respect of others. The House of Lords decided not to inspect the disputed documents, holding that inspection was only required if they were "reasonably likely" to assist or damage a party's case.
R v Chief Constable of West Midlands, ex parte Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274. The House of Lords decided that a minister could discharge his duty by making his own judgment of where the public interest lies, and was not obliged to claim PII in all cases where it may be applicable.
The Scott Inquiry found that public interest immunity certificates had been issued which withheld from defence counsel certain documents which would have exonerated the defendants in the Matrix Churchill trial.
R v Paul Burrell [2002] – A public-interest immunity certificate allowed the prosecution to apply to the judge for a ruling that disclosure of certain information would be harmful to the public interest and should not be made public.^[1]
R v Hicks, Nute and Rowe [2002] – A public-interest immunity certificate was presented to the court by the Crown Prosecution Service after about ten minutes of this hearing. A possible reason for the introduction of the PII certificate was that the Duchy of Cornwall refuses to reveal the circumstances under which it transferred several of its properties (including Tintagel Castle) to the care of English Heritage.^[2]
R v. Yam [2008] (trial of Wang Yam for the murder of Allan Chappelow) – In December 2007 the Crown Prosecution Service indicated it would ask for this trial for murder, burglary and deception to be held "in camera", making it the first UK murder trial ever heard behind closed doors without access by press or public. A public-interest immunity certificate was sought by the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith; it was reported by the Times on 13 December 2007 that the grounds were "on the basis of protecting national security interests and to protect the identity of informants". A further order was made under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting the press from any speculation as to the reasons for parts of the trial being held in private. In the Court of Appeal on 28 January, the "gagging order" was upheld, with the Lord Chief Justice insisting that a fair trial would be possible even if some or all of it is held "in camera".^[3]^[4]
R (Mohamed) v Foreign Secretary [Feb 2010]

European Convention on Human Rights

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a fair trial; an "implied" right stemming from this is that of "equality of arms" – the idea that hearings should be adversarial and both parties should have access to the same evidence and witnesses. The European Court of Human Rights has held that Article 6 (especially the "implied" rights) is not an absolute right and that measures restricting the rights of the defence so as to safeguard an important public interest are lawful if "strictly necessary".^[5]

It is of note that fewer PII certificates have been issued in recent years. For example, MI6 have not succeeded in obtaining a PII certificate since the 1995 Tomlinson case, and have thus been subject to court scrutiny for investigations such as the inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales, and allegations that their officers partook in torture.

External links

Legal guidance published by the Crown Prosecution Service on PII in criminal proceedings
Reforming Public Interest Immunity
The Use of Public Interest Immunity Claims in Criminal Cases

Related Research Articles

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the name given to the common law concept of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is "[a] client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters' privilege. This privilege involves the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to the information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently, the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most of the 50 states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.

Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that creates a public "right of access" to information held by public authorities. It is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom on a national level. Its application is limited in Scotland to UK Government offices located in Scotland. The Act implements a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election, developed by David Clark as a 1997 White Paper. The final version of the Act was criticised by freedom of information campaigners as a diluted form of what had been proposed in the White Paper. The full provisions of the act came into force on 1 January 2005.

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the formal recognition of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power.

In the common law, spousal privilege is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges that apply to spouses: the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

In common law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution. The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

The Official Secrets Act 1989 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repeals and replaces section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, thereby removing the public interest defence created by that section.

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called “act-of-production doctrine.” Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified, along nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client and so may only be waived by the client.

R v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

The Justice and Security Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, firstly to provide for oversight of the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), and other parts of the UK intelligence community, on intelligence or security matters; secondly to provide for the establishment of closed material procedures (CMP) in relation to certain civil proceedings; and thirdly to prevent the making of court orders for the disclosure of what the government deems to be sensitive information.

Khala v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African law.

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

References

↑ MPs criticise Queen over Burrell case – The Guardian, Nov 2002
↑ On the Road to Justice for the Cornish
↑ ""Bid for open murder trial fails"". BBC News. 2008-01-28. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
↑ Regina v. Wang Yam, [2008] EWCA Crim. 269, United Kingdom Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, January 28, 2008
↑ Rowe and Davies v. UK, (2000) 30 EHRR 1(ECtHR). Text

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] MPs criticise Queen over Burrell case – The Guardian, Nov 2002

[2] On the Road to Justice for the Cornish

[3] ""Bid for open murder trial fails"". BBC News. 2008-01-28. Retrieved 2008-01-29.

[4] Regina v. Wang Yam, [2008] EWCA Crim. 269, United Kingdom Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, January 28, 2008

[5] Rowe and Davies v. UK, (2000) 30 EHRR 1(ECtHR). Text

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]