Redaction of names of junior civil servants in judicial review proceedings
In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal has dismissed the government’s appeal of a High Court judgment which proscribed the government’s practice of routinely redacting the names of junior civil servants when supplying disclosure in judicial review proceedings. Christian Grierson and Jonathan Blunden analyse the judgment.
- Details
R (IAB and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWCA Civ 66 confirms that the principle of open justice and the duty of candour requires that the names of junior civil servants should not ordinarily be redacted when providing disclosure.
Background
In an earlier article we set out how in a High Court case (‘IAB’) Swift J held that litigants in judicial review proceedings are not entitled to redact, on the ground of relevance, the identities of officials in disclosed documents.
The IAB case concerned the lawfulness of regulations removing the requirement for houses in multiple occupation to be licensed if asylum seekers are to be placed there. The merits of the susbtantive case have not yet been decided.
In the IAB case, the government had served documents in which most of the names of civil servants in grades below the Senior Civil Service were redacted. The claimant sought to receive unredacted copies of the documents.
It is in this context that Swift J found that names of civil servants should not routinely be redacted from disclosable documents; redaction should take place only where it is necessary for good and sufficient reason supported by an application seeking permission for the proposed approach.
Subsequently, a further judicial review judgment Fordham J confirmed the findings of Swift J as the correct approach to making redactions and also rejected labeling the civil servant names using a cipher, such as ‘Civil Servant A’, as an alternative.
The government appealed Swift J’s decision in IAB, and an expedited appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 24 January 2024.
Judgment
The government argued that junior officials were entitled to a greater degree of protection from personal exposure than their senior colleagues and so their names should be redacted in judicial review disclosure unless relevant.
The core of the government’s argument was as follows:
“The names and identities of JCS [junior civil servants] will generally be irrelevant. The mere fact that a civil servant was involved at some point in considering or discussing the issues relating to the decision does not render their identity relevant. Nor does being named (e.g., as a recipient of an email) in a document which has been disclosed. Relevance depends on the fact in question (here, e.g., the name/identity of the recipient of an email) bearing in a material way on the issues in dispute.”
The respondents rejected this arguing, in summary, that it was “antithetical to the duty of candour to make redactions which obscure the context, significance or intelligibility of the documents disclosed or which apply a policy of redaction by default”.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the government’s appeal. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal did not pull its punches and the Court described the government’s submissions as ‘extraordinarily far-reaching’.
Alternatives to redactions (such as the use of ciphers) were also dismissed by the Court with Bean LJ nothing that “One would think that members of the Government Legal Department, even junior ones, had better things to do with their time”. Bean LJ went on to describe the government’s proposed approach to redactions as inimical to open government.
Implications
The government may seek to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court. However, for now, the key takeaway remains as stated in our previous articles. It is clear that a litigant in judicial review proceedings is not entitled, as a matter of course, to redact, on the ground of relevance, the identities of officials in disclosure.
This does not mean that a litigant cannot apply to redact officials’ names/details. The Court of Appeal noted that it is well established in ordinary civil litigation and in judicial review proceedings that parts of a document concerned with wholly different subject matter from that in issue may be redacted. It may also be justifiable to redact names, for example, for reasons of national security or where there is evidence of a real risk to the personal safety of the individual concerned. However, where such redactions are sought, a litigant must apply for permission to serve disclosure in this way.
Christian Grierson is a Junior Associate and Jonathan Blunden is a Legal Director at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
Jul 03, 2025
Aanya Gujral and David Owens dive into the recent guidance published on managing the risks associated with Private Finance Initiative (“PFI”) projects.
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
Jul 03, 2025
On the 19th June 2025, the Data Use and Access Bill (“DUA Bill”) received Royal Assent to become the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (“DUA Act”).
Modifying subsidies: What is permitted and what is not?
Jun 24, 2025
Beatrice Wood and Oliver Slater explore recent developments and discuss the process of awarding subsidies.
Getting new PPP right: Smarter tools for smarter infrastructure
Jun 24, 2025
Nicola Sumner, Steve Gummer and Roseanne Serrelli discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of Public-private Partnerships in their new form.
Zones/RABs and heat networks: The path to an investible infrastructure asset class?
Jun 19, 2025
The UK’s new heat network zoning framework (the outlines for which were drawn by the Energy Act 2023) is set to redefine how low‑carbon heating is delivered by creating geographic zones, where district heat networks are the mandated, optimal solution.
Partial debt guarantees- Reviving Investment in UK Water Infrastructure
Jun 17, 2025
Is it Time for a Public Sector Major Infrastructure Debt Guarantor?
Court gives clarity on consultations : R (The National Council for Civil Liberties) and others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jun 10, 2025
Chloe Woodward and Joe Walker discuss a recent judgment on when engagement with third parties constitute a formal consultation and must therefore adhere to case law on being 'run fairly'.
URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2025] UKSC 21 – Supreme Court hands down significant judgment for the construction industry
May 27, 2025
Helen Arthur explores a recent Supreme Court judgment on building safety in high-rise buildings, explaining what the decision means for defects claims.
Catch me if you can: Local government blazes a trail in increased SME spending
May 21, 2025
Juli Lau and Natasha Barlow take readers through the report published by the BCC on procurement spending.
Changing Course: Navigating Variations Under JCT and NEC Contracts
May 21, 2025
Tiah Weekes explains the process of changes to contracts in the field of construction.
Lessons in public consultation: High Court finds failures in local authority’s consideration of consultation responses
May 21, 2025
George McLellan and Samuel Hart explore the High Court decision ruling that Lambeth Council broke the law in the process of establishing an LTN in the borough.
Allocating risk in amended JCT contracts: Lessons from John Sisk & Son Limited v Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited
May 12, 2025
David Owens and Elizabeth Withers explore recent developments in construction contract case law.
|
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here. |
OUR NEXT EVENT
|
OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |