57:. 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.
73:. 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.
366:
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,
205:
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
76:
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,
230:
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
333:, 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
93:
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.
362:
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".
260:. 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
254:. 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.
237:
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
245:
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.
358:; 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
189:
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.
303:
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
564:
534:
290:", 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
323:
185:
to seek compensation for unfair dismissal. MI6 argued that this would "damage national security" and obtained a PII certificate from the then foreign secretary
167:
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.
470:
409:
155:
with the loss of 99 lives. The families of the sailors who had been killed in the disaster claimed damages from the builders,
424:
419:
520:
351:
593:
307:
prohibiting the press from any speculation as to the reasons for parts of the trial being held in private. In the
396:
359:
81:, the House of Lords held that the courts retained the final decision on whether PII should be upheld, and, in
77:
notwithstanding the potential application of PII, and the ability of the courts to review a claim of PII. In
214:
445:
121:
A number of PII certificates were signed in relation to the prosecutions of individuals involved in the
304:
223:
111:
413:
337:
which alleged prosecutorial misconduct by the Post Office in similar cases. This was unusual in that
283:
264:
refuses to reveal the circumstances under which it transferred several of its properties (including
598:
381:
195:. The House of Lords held that the courts are the final arbiters of whether PII applies or not.
535:"Post Office live: Solicitor said disclosure may give victims 'ticket to the Court of Appeal'"
583:
355:
315:
insisting that a fair trial would be possible even if some or all of it is held "in camera".
588:
474:
516:
8:
390:
334:
186:
182:
488:
102:
PII was previously known as Crown privilege, and derived from the same principle as the
312:
103:
65:
An order that PII applies would usually be sought by the
British government to protect
385:
286:
indicated it would ask for this trial for murder, burglary and deception to be held "
261:
174:
164:
269:
145:
338:
330:
308:
279:
265:
84:
66:
54:
47:
319:
291:
160:
118:
case mentioned below), and cannot be waived save in exceptional circumstances.
90:
50:
35:
577:
242:
156:
294:
250:
126:
122:
376:
227:
39:
28:
210:
31:
299:
287:
152:
142:
107:
70:
341:
was a private company, albeit one entrusted with a public function.
43:
219:
53:
to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the
444:
Watt, Nicholas; Dyer, Clare; Bates, Stephen (4 November 2002).
199:
D v
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
202:
425:
The Use of Public
Interest Immunity Claims in Criminal Cases
125:
case, a subject that was subsequently investigated in the
178:
367:
and allegations that their officers partook in torture.
311:
on 28 January, the "gagging order" was upheld, with the
345:
114:. However, PII is not limited to the Crown (see the
235:
R v Chief
Constable of West Midlands, ex parte Wiley
575:
206:interest and would be threatened by disclosure.
443:
399:– similar doctrine under United States law
393:– similar doctrine under United States law
471:"On the Road to Justice for the Cornish"
446:"MPs criticise Queen over Burrell case"
576:
278:(trial of Wang Yam for the murder of
563:, (2000) 30 EHRR 1 (ECtHR),
532:
60:
352:European Convention on Human Rights
346:European Convention on Human Rights
329:During the public inquiry into the
163:upheld a certificate issued by the
13:
420:Reforming Public Interest Immunity
14:
610:
489:"Bid for open murder trial fails"
403:
139:Duncan v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd
87:of West Midlands, ex parte Wiley
123:Matrix Churchill "Arms to Iraq"
69:, and so can be perceived as a
552:
526:
506:
481:
463:
437:
416:on PII in criminal proceedings
397:Deliberative process privilege
360:European Court of Human Rights
173:. In 1995, former MI6 officer
1:
430:
517:[2008] EWCA Crim 269
215:Secretary of State for Trade
110:from prosecution before the
7:
370:
151:sank on 1 June 1939 during
132:
10:
615:
305:Contempt of Court Act 1981
224:British Airports Authority
112:Crown Proceedings Act 1947
97:
533:Hyde, John (2 May 2024).
414:Crown Prosecution Service
384:– similar doctrine under
284:Crown Prosecution Service
226:had unlawfully increased
594:Privileged communication
519: (28 January 2008),
282:). In December 2007 the
258:R v Hicks, Nute and Rowe
17:Public interest immunity
539:The Law Society Gazette
382:State secrets privilege
23:), previously known as
560:Rowe and Davies v. UK
356:right to a fair trial
297:; it was reported by
218:2 AC 384. A group of
335:forensic accountants
27:, is a principle of
523:(England and Wales)
391:Executive privilege
187:Sir Malcolm Rifkind
183:employment tribunal
177:attempted to bring
313:Lord Chief Justice
104:sovereign immunity
513:Regina v Wang Yam
412:published by the
386:United States law
350:Article 6 of the
324:Foreign Secretary
268:) to the care of
262:Duchy of Cornwall
222:claimed that the
175:Richard Tomlinson
61:Seeking the order
606:
568:
562:
556:
550:
549:
547:
545:
530:
524:
510:
504:
503:
501:
500:
485:
479:
478:
473:. Archived from
467:
461:
460:
458:
456:
441:
270:English Heritage
67:official secrets
46:to refrain from
34:under which the
614:
613:
609:
608:
607:
605:
604:
603:
574:
573:
572:
571:
558:
557:
553:
543:
541:
531:
527:
521:Court of Appeal
511:
507:
498:
496:
487:
486:
482:
469:
468:
464:
454:
452:
442:
438:
433:
406:
373:
348:
339:Post Office Ltd
331:Horizon scandal
309:Court of Appeal
280:Allan Chappelow
266:Tintagel Castle
193:Conway v Rimmer
171:Tomlinson v HMG
135:
100:
85:Chief Constable
79:Conway v Rimmer
63:
55:public interest
25:Crown privilege
12:
11:
5:
612:
602:
601:
599:Legal immunity
596:
591:
586:
570:
569:
551:
525:
505:
480:
477:on 2019-09-30.
462:
435:
434:
432:
429:
428:
427:
422:
417:
410:Legal guidance
405:
404:External links
402:
401:
400:
394:
388:
379:
372:
369:
347:
344:
343:
342:
327:
316:
292:Home Secretary
273:
255:
246:
239:
232:
207:
196:
190:
168:
161:House of Lords
134:
131:
99:
96:
91:House of Lords
62:
59:
36:English courts
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
611:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
581:
579:
566:
561:
555:
540:
536:
529:
522:
518:
514:
509:
494:
490:
484:
476:
472:
466:
451:
447:
440:
436:
426:
423:
421:
418:
415:
411:
408:
407:
398:
395:
392:
389:
387:
383:
380:
378:
375:
374:
368:
364:
361:
357:
354:protects the
353:
340:
336:
332:
328:
326:
325:
321:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
253:
252:
247:
244:
243:Scott Inquiry
240:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
157:Cammell Laird
154:
150:
149:
144:
140:
137:
136:
130:
128:
124:
119:
117:
113:
109:
105:
95:
92:
88:
86:
80:
74:
72:
71:gagging order
68:
58:
56:
52:
49:
45:
42:allowing one
41:
37:
33:
30:
26:
22:
18:
584:Evidence law
559:
554:
542:. Retrieved
538:
528:
512:
508:
497:. Retrieved
495:. 2008-01-28
492:
483:
475:the original
465:
453:. Retrieved
450:The Guardian
449:
439:
365:
349:
318:
298:
295:Jacqui Smith
275:
257:
251:Paul Burrell
248:
234:
228:landing fees
209:
201:AC 171. The
198:
192:
170:
147:
141:AC 624. The
138:
127:Scott Report
120:
115:
101:
82:
78:
75:
64:
38:can grant a
24:
20:
16:
15:
589:English law
377:English law
320:R (Mohamed)
238:applicable.
40:court order
578:Categories
499:2008-01-29
431:References
211:Air Canada
181:before an
153:sea trials
48:disclosing
32:common law
300:The Times
288:in camera
165:Admiralty
146:HMS
143:submarine
108:the Crown
493:BBC News
371:See also
220:airlines
133:Examples
51:evidence
44:litigant
276:R v Yam
98:History
29:English
159:. The
148:Thetis
89:, the
544:3 May
515:
455:3 May
231:case.
203:NSPCC
116:NSPCC
565:Text
546:2024
457:2024
249:R v
241:The
83:R v
179:MI6
106:of
21:PII
580::
537:.
491:.
448:.
322:v
213:v
129:.
567:.
548:.
502:.
459:.
272:.
19:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.