Judicial Review Impact on Open Justice
Need for evaluation of the impact of changes to criminal procedure (e.g., Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022) on open justice.
59 items
4 sources
Source spread
Where this theme appears
Judicial Review Impact on Open Justice has been flagged across 4 independent accountability sources:
49 committee recs
1 NAO rec
2 PHSO decisions
7 LGO/SPSO decisions
When the same issue appears across inquiries, coroner reports, and regulators independently, it indicates a recurring issue across the public record.
Browse by source
Source-grouped records are useful for tracing where a concern came from. Large sections show the 50 strongest matches for that source; counts still show the full theme total.
Committee Recommendations (49)
#19 — Solicitor General's proposed role in triaging cases undermines trust in the Inquisitorial Mechanism.
Recommendation: Stakeholders have different interpretations of the potential powers and effectiveness of the Enhanced Inquisitorial Mechanism; some are enthusiastic, others concerned about its powers compared with the inquest system. The Government also has a balancing act to perform, between ensuring that …
Gov response: All investigations and inquisitorial proceedings undertaken by the Commission are required to examine all the circumstances of the death or serious harm to which the referral relates. Similarly, all investigations and inquisitorial proceedings undertaken by …
Not Addressed
#17 — Secretary of State's broad discretion risks premature closure of the Legacy Commission.
Recommendation: The Bill’s provisions for winding up the commission grant the Secretary of State broad discretion, raising concerns that it could be closed prematurely for political or resource-based reasons. There is a case for clearer consultation requirements and evidence-based decisions to …
Gov response: The Secretary of State’s power to wind up the Legacy Commission under Clause 25 is subject to significant safeguards. The Secretary of State can only do so, by regulations, when they are satisfied that the …
Accepted
#38 — Single Justice Procedure's lack of transparency remains a significant concern.
Recommendation: We remain concerned by the Single Justice Procedure’s lack of transparency.
Gov response: While the Criminal Procedure Rules require all courts to give certain additional information on individual cases upon request from the media and other interested third parties, courts are currently obliged to give more information on …
Accepted
#39 — Review the Single Justice Procedure to enhance transparency through timely publication of information.
Recommendation: The Government should review the procedure and seek to enhance its transparency by ensuring that any information that would have been available had the cases been heard in open court is published in a timely fashion.
Gov response: 104. While the Criminal Procedure Rules require all courts to give certain additional information on individual cases upon request from the media and other interested third parties, courts are currently obliged to give more information …
Accepted
#36 — Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 changes require evaluation of impact on open justice.
Recommendation: The changes to criminal procedure in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 should be carefully monitored. After one year of their operation, the Ministry of Justice should initiate an evaluation of how the changes are operating in practice, including …
Gov response: 101. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 202282 (JRCA) aims to remove unnecessary hearings and allow some procedures to be done online where defendants choose to do so. It is entirely optional. Defendants charged with …
Accepted
#34 — Broadcasting Crown Court sentencing remarks positively enhances open justice and public understanding.
Recommendation: We welcome the broadcasting of Crown Court sentencing remarks. It is a positive step for both open justice and the public understanding of sentencing.
Gov response: As outlined in paragraphs 36 to 37, we will carefully monitor the impact of the Crown Court broadcasting changes we introduced in the summer of 2022 before deciding whether to make any further interventions. We …
Under Consideration
#33 — Livestreaming court proceedings offers significant potential to enhance open justice and public accessibility.
Recommendation: The power to allow the transmission of proceedings to designated livestreaming premises has great potential to enable more people to observe court proceedings and enhance open justice. If students were able to observe cases in classrooms and lecture halls, or …
Gov response: 98. We agree. This is already possible via the remote observation enabling legislation but is yet to be used in practice.81 We will explore the appetite for this in the aforementioned call for evidence.
Under Consideration
#30 — New legislative framework enhances open justice through remote court observation
Recommendation: We welcome the new legislative framework for remote observation of court proceedings. The combination of this framework and improvement of the technological facilities of courts has the potential to enhance open justice by making it easier for the public and …
Gov response: In 2023, the MoJ will undertake a light-touch qualitative review with court and tribunal staff and the judiciary to understand the impact of remote observation on our services. We will complement this by working with …
Accepted
#28 — Publish all Crown Court sentencing remarks in accessible audio or written form
Recommendation: All Crown Court sentencing remarks should be published in audio and/or written form. HMCTS should ensure that the necessary resources are made available to enable sentencing remarks to be published.
Gov response: 88. The MoJ is working collaboratively with TNA, the judiciary and HMCTS to expand the scope of the FCL service. One of the options we will explore is to incorporate Crown Court sentencing remarks into …
Under Consideration
#21 — Comprehensive review of access to open court documents and potential legislation required.
Recommendation: The Government and HMCTS should conduct, or ask the Law Commission to conduct, a comprehensive review on access to documents referred to in open court and propose legislation if necessary to clarify the position.
Gov response: 71. As outlined above, we plan to consult on this topic via the aforementioned call for evidence. We will carefully consider stakeholders’ views, alongside the conclusions and recommendations in the JSC’s open justice report, before …
Under Consideration
#20 — Establish streamlined digital portal for court document and reporting restriction access.
Recommendation: The Government and HMCTS should establish a streamlined process for accessing court documents, including courts lists, using a digital portal modelled on Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) in the United States. This should also be used to inform …
Gov response: 69. As outlined earlier in our response, we have well-developed plans to improve access to court lists and judgments. While some court documents are already published, we do not, at this stage, have plans to …
Not Accepted
#14 — Lack of coherence and consistency in remote hearing access for public and media.
Recommendation: Remote hearings are still a relatively new and innovative feature of the justice system in England and Wales. The evidence to our inquiry suggests that there is a problem with a lack of coherence and consistency in relation to the …
Gov response: In 2023, the MoJ will undertake a light-touch qualitative review with court and tribunal staff and the judiciary to understand the impact of remote observation on our services. We will complement this by working with …
Under Consideration
#8 — Practical barriers create a chilling effect on open justice for journalists and the public
Recommendation: The evidence from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on its experience of attempting to access possession hearings presents a concerning picture of the practical reality of open justice in England and Wales. The legal and constitutional status of open justice …
Gov response: HMCTS’ guidance for staff on supporting media access to courts and tribunals states that court and tribunal staff should be helpful and welcoming to journalists and assist them in any reasonable way that supports their …
Accepted
#6 — Decline in court reporting negatively affects open justice in England and Wales
Recommendation: The decline in court reporting has had a negative effect on open justice in England and Wales.
Gov response: 35. Our response to JSC2 outlines some of the steps we are taking to make information about what happens in our courts and tribunals more accessible, including directly to the public. 36. Further to this, …
Accepted
#4 — Digital age requires collaboration for balanced open justice without damaging quality
Recommendation: The internet and social media are changing the way that the public access court proceedings, which is making the work of the courts more accessible; but this also presents dangers for the administration of justice. In the digital age, it …
Gov response: 32. When formulating the remote observation provisions in the PCSC Act 202234, the Government engaged with the senior judiciary, within appropriate constitutional parameters, to consider the practical implications of the legislation for the administration of …
Accepted
#3 — Government and Parliament must legislate on the proper limits of open justice
Recommendation: Open justice is a common law principle, and it is for the courts to determine its requirements in particular cases. However, responsibility for deciding how the principle should operate should not be left to the courts alone. Deciding the proper …
Gov response: 27. The principle of open justice is very well established as a common law principle, and to the extent that any underpinning in statute is required, we feel that to be amply provided by Article …
Not Accepted
#2 — Need for a White Paper clarifying public rights to court access in the digital age
Recommendation: The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice should consider producing a White Paper that clarifies and publicises the right of the public to attend court hearings and access information on court proceedings in the digital age.
Gov response: 10. The Government has taken considerable steps to improve access to court hearings and information on court proceedings. Some of this recent work is outlined below and expanded on throughout this document. Before a hearing: …
Accepted
#44 — Target to publish 10% of judgments faces concerns about anonymisation unit resources.
Recommendation: We welcome the Transparency Review’s proposal to set a target of every judge publishing 10% of their judgments. If achieved, this would make a significant 56 Open justice: court reporting in the digital age contribution to the transparency of the …
Gov response: We have been working alongside the PFD to understand the impact of the recommendations from his recent report on transparency. We remain committed to increasing transparency in family justice and the principles of open justice. …
Not Accepted
#43 — Success of informative family court lists pilot depends on identifying cases of public interest.
Recommendation: We welcome the commitment to produce more informative family court lists. The success of the proposed pilot will depend on journalists and bloggers being able to identity cases that will generate wider public interest.
Gov response: 113. Family court lists are currently available on CourtServe.84 In 2023, family court lists will also be available on the new CATH service (outlined in paragraphs 12 to 14 above) which will help ensure all …
Accepted
#41 — Ask Law Commission to propose reform of Section 12 for better transparency-confidentiality balance.
Recommendation: We agree with the President of the Family Division that there should be a review of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. In our view section 12 of the Act should be reviewed and reformed so that …
Gov response: 111. We have been working alongside the PFD as part of the Transparency Implementation Group (TIG), which is chaired by PFD and attended by MoJ and HMCTS officials, to understand the impact of the recommendations …
Under Consideration
#40 — Strengthen open justice governance by formalising Data Governance Panel and establishing user group.
Recommendation: The Government should clarify and strengthen the governance structures on open justice. The Senior Data Governance Panel should be formalised and its powers and remit should be defined and published. It is vital that the decisions made by the Panel …
Gov response: 107. As of December 2022, the Senior Data Governance Panel (SDGP) has met 14 times. We can confirm that the SDGP has now been formalised and will continue delivering the advisory remit given to it …
Not Accepted
#37 — Documenting and timely online publication of court information can mitigate open justice concerns.
Recommendation: The potential effect of these changes on open justice might also be mitigated by ensuring that the relevant information that would have otherwise been said in open court is documented and published online in a timely fashion.
Gov response: 103. Information about cases dealt with outside of a traditional courtroom hearing via any of the new criminal procedures in the JRCA 2022, including details of cases due to be considered and outcomes, will be …
Accepted
#35 — Commission research to identify suitable civil and criminal proceedings for broadcast and video archiving.
Recommendation: More widely, we recommend that HMCTS and the Judiciary commission research to determine which civil and criminal proceedings could be suitable for broadcast and video archiving. In principle, we would support the extension of broadcasting and recording to civil trials …
Gov response: 99. As outlined in paragraphs 36 to 37, we will carefully monitor the impact of the Crown Court broadcasting changes we introduced in the summer of 2022 before deciding whether to make any further interventions. …
Under Consideration
#31 — Evaluate the new remote observation framework considering court resources and transmissions
Recommendation: It is right that judges are in control of the decision as to whether to allow remote observation. In some cases, judges will find these decisions difficult to make. It is crucial therefore that the effect of this new framework …
Gov response: In 2023, the MoJ will undertake a light-touch qualitative review with court and tribunal staff and the judiciary to understand the impact of remote observation on our services. We will complement this by working with …
Accepted
#29 — Require Government to provide status update on open justice project funding and completion
Recommendation: We are concerned over whether the Ministry of Justice has allocated sufficient funding to ensure that the court reform programme can overcome some of the barriers to public and media access to information on courts. We ask the Government to …
Gov response: 89. The £1.3bn HMCTS reform programme76 was launched in 2016 with the overall aim of a courts and tribunals system which is more straightforward, accessible, and efficient. This ambitious programme is designed to improve courts …
Accepted
#27 — Reform judgment collection, storage, and publication to reduce reliance on commercial publishers
Recommendation: HMCTS should reform the way that judgments are collected, stored and published so that there is less reliance on commercial legal publishers. The judgments of courts are the product of a publicly funded justice system and the public, the media …
Gov response: 84. The recently launched FCL service74 provides free public access to court judgments and tribunal decisions once they have been handed down and released for publication by the court/tribunal. 85. The service is operated, funded, …
Accepted
#22 — Reporting restrictions show inconsistency in notification and ineffective compliance on social media
Recommendation: Reporting restrictions play a key role in securing the fairness of the justice system. However, it is clear that there is inconsistency in the courts’ approach to notifying the media when restrictions are in place, and they are often not …
Gov response: Sometimes automatic (via legislation) or discretionary reporting restrictions (decided by the judge) must be put in place. Automatic reporting restrictions are in addition to the media’s own responsibility for compliance with the Contempt of Court …
Accepted
#18 — Consider expanding digital portal to include all court information, results, and restrictions.
Recommendation: We request further information on when this service will go live and what improvements are planned to the level of information on the lists and the accessibility of the service. We recommend that HMCTS considers whether the proposed digital portal …
Gov response: 64. Information on the new CATH service is outlined in paragraphs 12 to 14. The new service is already live and publishing Single Justice Procedure (SJP) lists for both the press and public. The SJP …
Not Accepted
#16 — Crown Court case outcome information for journalists lags behind Magistrates' Court provision.
Recommendation: HMCTS should ensure that the Crown Court provides the same level of information to journalists on the outcome of cases as is currently provided by the Magistrates’ court.
Gov response: 62. The Criminal Procedure Rules60 concerning the publication of hearing lists and the supply of information to parties, the public, and the media are the same for magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court (and, indeed, …
Under Consideration
#15 — Gather and publish detailed data on remote court proceeding observation requests by jurisdiction.
Recommendation: We recommend that HMCTS gathers and publishes data on requests to observe proceedings remotely. In particular, it would be useful to know the number of requests received and the number of requests granted by jurisdiction.
Gov response: 60. Partly as a legacy of the pandemic, HMCTS currently utilise a number of video hearing platforms, including Microsoft Teams, the Cloud Video Platform,58 and the Video Hearing (VH) service.59 Consequently, it is unable to …
Accepted
#13 — Listing email addresses for remote hearing access is crucial for all court websites.
Recommendation: Every court should list an email address on its website to enable the media and the public to request access to remote hearings.
Gov response: 58. As of April 2021, more than 350,000 people were using HMCTS’s FCT service56 each month. Built using public and professional user research, alongside insight and feedback, this digital service enables users to search for …
Accepted
#9 — Public must be aware of their rights to attend court proceedings and access information
Recommendation: We welcome the publication of the Reporters’ Charter, which for the first time sets out the rights and obligations of journalists reporting on court proceedings. We note, however, that the rights of access that flow from the principle of open …
Gov response: The Government has taken considerable steps to improve access to court hearings and information on court proceedings. Some of this recent work is outlined below and expanded on throughout this document. Before a hearing: Court …
Accepted
#7 — HMCTS must enhance direct communication and provide media information to facilitate court reporting
Recommendation: As the public receives less information through the media on the work of the courts, HMCTS should do more to enable the courts to communicate information on court proceedings directly to the public. In addition, HMCTS needs to use technology …
Gov response: Our response to JSC2 outlines some of the steps we are taking to make information about what happens in our courts and tribunals more accessible, including directly to the public. Further to this, in July …
Partially Accepted
#5 — Concerning decline in news media coverage of courts, especially Magistrates’ courts
Recommendation: The well-documented decline in the news media’s coverage of the courts, particularly the Magistrates’ courts, is concerning. In acting as the eyes and ears of the public, the media perform a vital role in keeping the public informed on the …
Gov response: Our response to JSC2 outlines some of the steps we are taking to make information about what happens in our courts and tribunals more accessible, including directly to the public. Further to this, in July …
Accepted
#45 — Provide requisite resources to establish anonymisation unit for safe publication of Family Court judgments.
Recommendation: His Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service should ensure that the requisite resources are provided to enable the establishment of an anonymisation unit that facilitates the publication of at least 10% of Family Court judgments without the risk of identification of …
Gov response: 114. We have been working alongside the PFD to understand the impact of the recommendations from his recent report on transparency. We remain committed to increasing transparency in family justice and the principles of open …
Not Accepted
#42 — Media access to Family Courts supported, but resource allocation and reporting interest remain uncertain.
Recommendation: In broad terms, we support the Transparency Review’s principal recommendation that media representative and bloggers should be able to report, subject to the relevant restrictions, on the cases they observe in the Family Court. We would caution, however, that given …
Gov response: 112. In relation to media representation and legal bloggers at family court hearings, as well as producing court listings and family court judgments, these are for the judiciary to ultimately decide. We are working alongside …
Under Consideration
#32 — Commission an evaluation of the new framework's first year of operation by June 2023.
Recommendation: HMCTS should commission an evaluation in June 2023 to examine how the new framework has worked in its first year of operation.
Gov response: 97. In 2023, the MoJ will undertake a light-touch qualitative review with court and tribunal staff and the judiciary to understand the impact of remote observation on our services. We will complement this by working …
Accepted
#26 — National Archives Find Case Law Service should be first step for judgment accessibility
Recommendation: We welcome the establishment of the National Archives Find Case Law Service. However, this service should represent the first step in improving the public accessibility of judgments. (Paragraph 93) 54 Open justice: court reporting in the digital age
Gov response: The recently launched FCL service provides free public access to court judgments and tribunal decisions once they have been handed down and released for publication by the court/tribunal. The service is operated, funded, and being …
Accepted
#23 — Enable the proposed digital portal to access a centralised database of reporting restrictions
Recommendation: The proposed new digital portal should also enable access to a centralised database of reporting restrictions on cases.
Gov response: 72. The Judicial College63 publishes guidance, updated in September 2022,64 setting out the recommended approach to take when making decisions to exclude the media or prevent it from reporting proceedings in the courts. This guidance …
Accepted
#19 — Committee awaits update on Civil Procedure Rule Committee's work to improve document access.
Recommendation: The Committee would welcome an update on the work being undertaken by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to improve access to documents in civil proceedings.
Gov response: 68. Please see our response to JSC3 above (paragraphs 29 to 31).
Under Consideration
#17 — Digitisation and consolidation of court and tribunal lists into single service welcomed.
Recommendation: We welcome the planned digitisation of the publication of court and tribunal lists and the consolidation into a single service in one location.
Gov response: The Government has taken considerable steps to improve access to court hearings and information on court proceedings. Some of this recent work is outlined below and expanded on throughout this document. Before a hearing: Court …
Accepted
#12 — Public understanding of court proceedings and attendance rights requires enhancement.
Recommendation: HMCTS should institute a programme of open days to encourage the public to visit their local courts, for example during Justice Week. This programme should be used to improve the awareness of both the public and HMCTS staff of the …
Gov response: 54. Judges and HMCTS staff working in our courts and tribunals undertake locally led community outreach work, hosting visits from schools, colleges, and universities – including ‘mock trials’ for young students – and occasional open …
Accepted
#11 — Need for a single point of contact for all media and public court inquiries
Recommendation: The Reporters’ Charter helpfully directs the media to the MOJ press office and the Judicial Press Office to deal with enquiries and issues on accessing court proceedings and information. There should be a single point of contact for all accessibility …
Gov response: The Reporters’ Charter helpfully directs the media to the MOJ press office and the Judicial Press Office to deal with enquiries and issues on accessing court proceedings and information. There should be a single point …
Under Consideration
#18 — Bring forward legislation to enable IPP resentencing for all sentenced individuals
Recommendation: Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated). This is the only way to address the …
Gov response: Reject Reasoning: At the time of abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012, the Government decided against retrospectively abolishing the sentences of those still serving IPPs. The Government recognised that to re-sentence those individuals would …
Not Accepted
#17 — Require primary legislation to enable a comprehensive IPP resentencing exercise
Recommendation: As Lord Thomas noted in R v Roberts: “It was Parliament which legislated to establish a regime of sentences of IPP in terms which the courts have faithfully and IPP sentences 61 properly applied. It must, in our democracy and …
Gov response: Reject Reasoning: At the time of abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012, the Government decided against retrospectively abolishing the sentences of those still serving IPPs. The Government recognised that to re-sentence those individuals would …
Not Accepted
#16 — IPP sentence remains irredeemably flawed, requiring more than current measures
Recommendation: Our Report has set out various steps the Government needs to take to help address the IPP problem. But it is clear to us that, while these measures are necessary, they will not be sufficient on their own to deal …
Gov response: Reject Reasoning: At the time of abolition of the IPP sentence in 2012, the Government decided against retrospectively abolishing the sentences of those still serving IPPs. The Government recognised that to re-sentence those individuals would …
Not Accepted
#25 — Explore AI-powered transcription pilots and review contracts to improve court transcript accessibility
Recommendation: HMCTS should explore whether greater use of technology, such as AI-powered transcription, could be piloted to see whether it can be used to reduce the cost of producing court transcripts. HMCTS should also consider whether the sentencing remarks in the …
Gov response: We recognise that transcripts of court proceedings are not routinely accessible and there are a number of reasons for this. Not all court proceedings are recorded, therefore transcripts are simply not available in all courts …
Not Accepted
#10 — Publish a citizens’ charter outlining public rights to access court information
Recommendation: HMCTS should publish a citizens’ charter that outlines the public’s rights to access information on the courts.
Gov response: 49. In 2023, we will develop and publish a charter for members of the public that summarises the existing rules that facilitate public access to court and tribunal hearings and information. It will sit alongside …
Accepted
#18 — Ofcom's online safety enforcement decisions require strong evidence and proportionality to withstand judicial review.
Recommendation: The enforcement action Ofcom can take on online safety regulation includes: fines of up to 10% of global revenues; requirements on the service provider to make changes; business disruption measures that prevent them from accessing the UK market; and criminal …
Not Addressed
PHSO Casework Decisions (2)
P-001847 — Department for Work and Pensions
Mr R complains DWP incorrectly refused to reimburse legal fees he paid in pursuing a Judicial Review (JR). He also complains DWP refused to compensate him fully for the distress and lost time time linked with pursuing the JR.
UK Government
Jan 2023
P-002502 — Planning Inspectorate
Mr A complains the Planning Inspectorate did not fairly consider his planning appeal and made an unreasonable decision to reject it.
UK Government
Mar 2024
LGO / SPSO Decisions (7)
21-016-733 — Shropshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s policy on council tax exemptions and the empty property premium is unfair. The policy can only be questioned at court via judicial review.
LGO (Local Government & …
Benefits And Tax
Mar 2022
21-008-237 — Birmingham City Council
Summary: We have stopped investigating Mr and Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove them from its housing register. This is because Mr and Mrs B have applied to the Court to judicially review the Council’s decision. The complaint is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.
LGO (Local Government & …
Housing
Feb 2022
24-000-529 — Bristol City Council
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council breached her Human Rights. The matters she complains of have been considered by the Court.
LGO (Local Government & …
Education
May 2024
25-006-478 — Westmorland and Furness Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council applying a council tax premium on his property. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. And, we will not investigate the way the Council introduced this scheme because …
LGO (Local Government & …
Benefits And Tax
Jul 2025
22-009-310 — London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against the complainant. This is because the complainant has already appealed to the Planning Inspector. Some of the matters complained about are subject to court proceedings.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Oct 2022
22-011-136 — Blaby District Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s planning applications. He has the statutory right of appeal to the planning inspectorate about the Council’s refusal, and it is reasonable for him to approach the high court for judicial review.
LGO (Local Government & …
Planning
Dec 2022
25-007-031 — London Borough of Islington
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council seizing Mr X’s business goods. The law prevents us considering some points. Other points are too closely related to matters raised in ongoing court proceedings.
LGO (Local Government & …
Other Categories
Sep 2025