68:. 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.
84:. 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.
377:
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,
216:
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
87:
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,
241:
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
344:, it came to light that two lawyers for the Post Office who were conducting a prosecution of a sub-postmaster in Birmingham crown court had persuaded the judge to allow them, on grounds of public interest immunity, not to disclose to the defence a report by
104:
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.
373:
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".
271:. 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
265:. 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.
248:
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
256:
in 1996 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.
369:; 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
200:
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.
314:
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
575:
545:
301:", 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
334:
196:
to seek compensation for unfair dismissal. MI6 argued that this would "damage national security" and obtained a PII certificate from the then foreign secretary
178:
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.
481:
17:
420:
166:
with the loss of 99 lives. The families of the sailors who had been killed in the disaster claimed damages from the builders,
435:
430:
531:
362:
604:
318:
prohibiting the press from any speculation as to the reasons for parts of the trial being held in private. In the
407:
370:
92:, the House of Lords held that the courts retained the final decision on whether PII should be upheld, and, in
88:
notwithstanding the potential application of PII, and the ability of the courts to review a claim of PII. In
225:
456:
132:
A number of PII certificates were signed in relation to the prosecutions of individuals involved in the
315:
234:
122:
424:
348:
which alleged prosecutorial misconduct by the Post Office in similar cases. This was unusual in that
294:
275:
refuses to reveal the circumstances under which it transferred several of its properties (including
609:
392:
206:. The House of Lords held that the courts are the final arbiters of whether PII applies or not.
546:"Post Office live: Solicitor said disclosure may give victims 'ticket to the Court of Appeal'"
594:
366:
326:
insisting that a fair trial would be possible even if some or all of it is held "in camera".
599:
485:
527:
8:
401:
345:
197:
193:
499:
113:
PII was previously known as Crown privilege, and derived from the same principle as the
323:
114:
76:
An order that PII applies would usually be sought by the
British government to protect
396:
297:
indicated it would ask for this trial for murder, burglary and deception to be held "
272:
185:
175:
280:
156:
349:
341:
319:
290:
276:
95:
77:
65:
58:
330:
302:
171:
129:
case mentioned below), and cannot be waived save in exceptional circumstances.
101:
61:
46:
588:
253:
167:
305:
261:
137:
133:
387:
238:
50:
39:
221:
42:
310:
298:
163:
153:
118:
81:
352:
was a private company, albeit one entrusted with a public function.
54:
230:
64:
to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the
455:
Watt, Nicholas; Dyer, Clare; Bates, Stephen (4 November 2002).
210:
D v
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
213:
436:
The Use of Public
Interest Immunity Claims in Criminal Cases
136:
case, a subject that was subsequently investigated in the
189:
378:
and allegations that their officers partook in torture.
322:
on 28 January, the "gagging order" was upheld, with the
356:
125:. However, PII is not limited to the Crown (see the
246:
R v Chief
Constable of West Midlands, ex parte Wiley
586:
217:interest and would be threatened by disclosure.
454:
410:– similar doctrine under United States law
404:– similar doctrine under United States law
482:"On the Road to Justice for the Cornish"
457:"MPs criticise Queen over Burrell case"
14:
587:
289:(trial of Wang Yam for the murder of
574:, (2000) 30 EHRR 1 (ECtHR),
543:
71:
363:European Convention on Human Rights
357:European Convention on Human Rights
340:During the public inquiry into the
174:upheld a certificate issued by the
24:
431:Reforming Public Interest Immunity
25:
621:
500:"Bid for open murder trial fails"
414:
150:Duncan v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd
98:of West Midlands, ex parte Wiley
134:Matrix Churchill "Arms to Iraq"
80:, and so can be perceived as a
563:
537:
517:
492:
474:
448:
427:on PII in criminal proceedings
408:Deliberative process privilege
371:European Court of Human Rights
184:. In 1995, former MI6 officer
13:
1:
441:
528:[2008] EWCA Crim 269
226:Secretary of State for Trade
121:from prosecution before the
7:
381:
162:sank on 1 June 1939 during
143:
10:
626:
316:Contempt of Court Act 1981
235:British Airports Authority
123:Crown Proceedings Act 1947
108:
544:Hyde, John (2 May 2024).
425:Crown Prosecution Service
395:– similar doctrine under
295:Crown Prosecution Service
237:had unlawfully increased
605:Privileged communication
530: (28 January 2008),
293:). In December 2007 the
269:R v Hicks, Nute and Rowe
28:Public interest immunity
18:Public-interest immunity
550:The Law Society Gazette
393:State secrets privilege
34:), previously known as
571:Rowe and Davies v. UK
367:right to a fair trial
308:; it was reported by
229:2 AC 384. A group of
346:forensic accountants
38:, is a principle of
534:(England and Wales)
402:Executive privilege
198:Sir Malcolm Rifkind
194:employment tribunal
188:attempted to bring
324:Lord Chief Justice
115:sovereign immunity
524:Regina v Wang Yam
423:published by the
397:United States law
361:Article 6 of the
335:Foreign Secretary
279:) to the care of
273:Duchy of Cornwall
233:claimed that the
186:Richard Tomlinson
72:Seeking the order
16:(Redirected from
617:
579:
573:
567:
561:
560:
558:
556:
541:
535:
521:
515:
514:
512:
511:
496:
490:
489:
484:. Archived from
478:
472:
471:
469:
467:
452:
281:English Heritage
78:official secrets
57:to refrain from
45:under which the
21:
625:
624:
620:
619:
618:
616:
615:
614:
585:
584:
583:
582:
569:
568:
564:
554:
552:
542:
538:
532:Court of Appeal
522:
518:
509:
507:
498:
497:
493:
480:
479:
475:
465:
463:
453:
449:
444:
417:
384:
359:
350:Post Office Ltd
342:Horizon scandal
320:Court of Appeal
291:Allan Chappelow
277:Tintagel Castle
204:Conway v Rimmer
182:Tomlinson v HMG
146:
111:
96:Chief Constable
90:Conway v Rimmer
74:
66:public interest
36:Crown privilege
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
623:
613:
612:
610:Legal immunity
607:
602:
597:
581:
580:
562:
536:
516:
491:
488:on 2019-09-30.
473:
446:
445:
443:
440:
439:
438:
433:
428:
421:Legal guidance
416:
415:External links
413:
412:
411:
405:
399:
390:
383:
380:
358:
355:
354:
353:
338:
327:
303:Home Secretary
284:
266:
257:
250:
243:
218:
207:
201:
179:
172:House of Lords
145:
142:
110:
107:
102:House of Lords
73:
70:
47:English courts
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
622:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
596:
593:
592:
590:
577:
572:
566:
551:
547:
540:
533:
529:
525:
520:
505:
501:
495:
487:
483:
477:
462:
458:
451:
447:
437:
434:
432:
429:
426:
422:
419:
418:
409:
406:
403:
400:
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
385:
379:
375:
372:
368:
365:protects the
364:
351:
347:
343:
339:
337:
336:
332:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
264:
263:
258:
255:
254:Scott Inquiry
251:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
168:Cammell Laird
165:
161:
160:
155:
151:
148:
147:
141:
139:
135:
130:
128:
124:
120:
116:
106:
103:
99:
97:
91:
85:
83:
82:gagging order
79:
69:
67:
63:
60:
56:
53:allowing one
52:
48:
44:
41:
37:
33:
29:
19:
595:Evidence law
570:
565:
553:. Retrieved
549:
539:
523:
519:
508:. Retrieved
506:. 2008-01-28
503:
494:
486:the original
476:
464:. Retrieved
461:The Guardian
460:
450:
376:
360:
329:
309:
306:Jacqui Smith
286:
268:
262:Paul Burrell
259:
245:
239:landing fees
220:
212:AC 171. The
209:
203:
181:
158:
152:AC 624. The
149:
138:Scott Report
131:
126:
112:
93:
89:
86:
75:
49:can grant a
35:
31:
27:
26:
600:English law
388:English law
331:R (Mohamed)
249:applicable.
51:court order
589:Categories
510:2008-01-29
442:References
222:Air Canada
192:before an
164:sea trials
59:disclosing
43:common law
311:The Times
299:in camera
176:Admiralty
157:HMS
154:submarine
119:the Crown
504:BBC News
382:See also
231:airlines
144:Examples
62:evidence
55:litigant
287:R v Yam
109:History
40:English
170:. The
159:Thetis
100:, the
555:3 May
526:
466:3 May
242:case.
214:NSPCC
127:NSPCC
576:Text
557:2024
468:2024
260:R v
252:The
94:R v
190:MI6
117:of
32:PII
591::
548:.
502:.
459:.
333:v
224:v
140:.
578:.
559:.
513:.
470:.
283:.
30:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.