Roch LJ said: ‘When an issue of public interest immunity is raised, the court’s first duty is to weigh the public interest in preserving the immunity against the public interest that all relevant information which might assist a court to ascertain facts relevant to an issue upon which the court is required to adjudicate should be before the court. See the passage from the speech of Lord Diplock in D v. NSPCC cited in Schiemann’s LJ’s judgment. Clearly the second public interest will be stronger in criminal cases than in civil cases because, normally, what will be at stake in criminal cases, namely the good name and liberty of the accused, will be weightier than what will be at stake in civil proceedings. No doubt there will be cases where, in order to carry out this balancing exercise, the judge will have to have disclosed to him the information for which the immunity is sought . . Once the balance comes down in favour of preserving the immunity from disclosure, then the court has no further discretion. Once that point is reached, it becomes a rule of law that the material or information must be excluded from the case, see Marks v. Beyfus and the passages from that case cited by Schiemann LJ.’
Judges:
Roch LJ
Citations:
Unreported, 16 December 1999
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Leave – Powell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary CA 20-Aug-1999
Application for permission to appeal by the defendant. The defendant had asserted a public interest immunity in refusing to disclose evidence of a witness since it would lead to the revelation of the identity of an informer.
Held: Leave was . .
Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.443853