The court discussed the need for those appearing before tribunals to be given sufficient access to all the material placed before the judge. Upjohn LJ said: ‘It seems to be fundamental to any judicial inquiry that a person or other properly interested party must have the right to see all the information put before the judge, to comment on it, to challenge it and if needs be to combat it, and to try to establish by contrary evidence that it is wrong. It cannot be withheld from him in whole or in part. If it is so withheld and yet the judge takes such information into account in reaching his conclusion without disclosure to those parties who are properly and naturally vitally concerned, the proceedings cannot be described as judicial.’
Devlin L set out: ‘ the fundamental principle of justice that the judge should not look at material that the parties before him have not seen.’
 Ch 381
England and Wales
Appeal from – In re K (Infants) ChD 1963
Ungoed Thomas J discussed the balance of interests in a wardship case, as it affected disclosure of documents: ‘However, where the paramount purpose is the welfare of the infant, the procedure and rules of evidence should serve and certainly not . .
Appeal from – In Re K (Infants); Official Solicitor v K HL 2-Jan-1963
The House considered the propriety of a tribunal chairman seeing material not placed before the parties. This was a wardship case.
Held: Where the interests of the parents and the child conflicted, ‘the welfare of the child must dominate’.
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 4-Oct-2006
The claimant challenged the decision of the respondent that his continued presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. He had been given multiple entry visas which had been revoked.
Held: The refusal of entry interfered with . .
Cited – Chief Constable and Another v YK and Others FD 6-Oct-2010
The court gave directions in Forced Marriage Protection order applications. An order had been made at the request of the police on behalf of A, and the court had declined to discharge it on A’s own application.
Held: Special advocates were not . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.228358