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.
Source spread
Where this theme appears
This theme appears across 7 independent accountability sources, so the source mix matters as much as the headline total.
55 committee recs
1 NAO rec
1 DHR rec
2 PHSO decisions
7 LGO/SPSO decisions
1 Law Commission project
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.
Select committee recommendations(55)— showing 50 strongest matches
#48 —
Recommendation: The Government should amend section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to clarify that subsection (1) applies to the acceptance of proceeds of crime as payment for legal services. If necessary this could specify the application to services …
Response attribution not verified
#38 —
Recommendation: The new Government is failing to prioritise anti-SLAPP legislation. This is troubling and has serious potential consequences for press freedom and the future of the news industry. There has already been a public consultation. Viable legislative options and precedents exist. …
Response attribution not verified
#10 —
Recommendation: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are increasingly used as instruments of transnational repression. These lawsuits are designed to intimidate and silence individuals who expose or criticise the actions of authoritarian regimes. The evidence we have received demonstrates that journalists …
Response attribution not verified
#39 —
Recommendation: Given the difficulty of defining these concepts, in our view, it should be possible to appeal, or challenge by way of judicial review, the decision to make, or not make, an order that a complex and lengthy case should not …
Response status not verified
#33 —
Recommendation: The government must ensure that the bill clarifies beyond doubt whether allocation decisions in the Crown Court can be subject to judicial review. (Recommendation, Paragraph 124)
Response status not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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.
Response attribution not verified
#6 —
Recommendation: AI systems pose particular risks to the right to an effective remedy in circumstances where there is insufficient transparency concerning the use of AI systems to support significant decisions about affected persons, and in 75 circumstances where it is difficult …
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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.
Response attribution not verified
#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.
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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.
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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: …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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, …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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.
Response attribution not verified
#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
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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).
Position Not Stated
#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.
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Position Not Stated
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
#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 …
Response attribution not verified
NAO audit recommendations(1)
Independent reviews(14)
Jones: Patronising Disposition Review — Rec 23
It is not within my terms of reference to comment on calls for a public inquiry into Orgreave or other historic issues involving the police. Elsewhere in this report I suggest that the Attorney General's Office should review its processes for consideration of Section 13 applications for inquests to be …
Policing & Security
Jones: Patronising Disposition Review — Rec 9iii
The concept of an inquest as an inquisitorial process has much to recommend it, but it was not the reality of the Hillsborough inquests, and it is not the reality of other inquests in which the narrative of events is contested. I accept that a complex or contentious inquest will …
Policing & Security
IOPC Review — Rec 22
The Home Office, Ministry of Justice and IOPC should consider and consult on options to make challenges to IOPC decisions more accessible, in particular whether the financial liability to cover the IOPC's legal costs should be capped if an application for Judicial Review of the lawfulness of an IOPC decision …
Policing & Security
IRAL / Faulks Review — Rec 8(k)
Further improvements to the law on procedure may be sought through non-legislative means. The courts should be encouraged to do more to address the issue of standing in claims that come before them. Criteria should be developed and publicised for determining when the courts will hear from an intervener in …
Justice & Legal
IRAL / Faulks Review — Rec 8(j)
We do, however, think that there may well be merit in abolishing the requirement of promptitude in the current rule that (with exceptions) claims for judicial review must not only be brought within three months, but promptly as well (Chapter 4).
Justice & Legal
IRAL / Faulks Review — Rec 8(h)
Parliament ought to provide (or the judges should develop) a remedy of suspension to alleviate the bluntness of a quashing order (Chapter 3).
Justice & Legal
IRAL / Faulks Review — Rec 8(g)
Parliament ought to intervene to reverse Cart (Chapter 3).
Justice & Legal
IRAL / Faulks Review — Rec 4.168
The Panel recommends that criteria for permitting interventions in judicial review cases should be developed and published, perhaps in the Guidance for the Administrative Court.
Justice & Legal
IRAL / Faulks Review — Rec 3.68
We recommend that section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 be amended to make it clear that the courts have the power to make suspended quashing orders in appropriate cases. This could be done through the insertion into section 31 of a new subsection (4A), which would read, "On …
Justice & Legal
Lammy Review — Rec 13
As part of the court modernisation programme, all sentencing remarks in the Crown Court should be published in audio and/or written form. This would build trust by making justice more transparent and comprehensible for victims, witnesses and offenders.
Justice & Legal
Accepted
Lammy Review — Rec 12
The Open Justice initiative should be extended and updated so that it is possible to view sentences for individual offences at individual courts, broken down by demographic characteristics, including gender and ethnicity.
Justice & Legal
Accepted
Jones: Patronising Disposition Review — Rec 9
A fundamental point of learning from the Hillsborough families' experiences is that the state must ensure 'proper participation' of bereaved families at inquests at which a public body is to be represented. This includes inquests following a disaster such as Hillsborough, but also – for example – following deaths in …
Policing & Security
Jones: Patronising Disposition Review — Rec 12
Utilising the legal routes available in the absence of an appeal process, Anne Williams, mother of Kevin Williams, made three Section 13 applications to the Attorney General asking him to apply to the High Court for the original inquests to be quashed. Each application failed. Anne Williams' applications to the …
Policing & Security
Anderson Review — Rec 114
There should be a right of appeal to an appropriate court from rulings of the IPT, on points of law only, permission being required in the normal way from either the IPT or the appellate court (cf. ISC Report, Recommendation LL).
Other
PHSO casework decisions(2)
P-001847 — Department for Work and Pensions
DWP refused to reimburse legal fees for a judicial review and did not adequately compensate Mr R for distress caused by unaddressed mandatory reconsideration requests over five years.
UK Government
Jan 2023
P-002502 — Planning Inspectorate
Mr A complained the Planning Inspectorate unfairly rejected his appeal for garage renovation, failing to consider his mobility needs due to chronic pain or consult him during the site visit.
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