Open justice ends when the criminal justice system bungles

We await post-Osland examples of any such "irresistible" cases! It is noted, however, that the High Court has referred aspects of Osland back to the Supreme Court.

So what, then?

My FoI claim against VLA was really only a sideshow to the main game. As the VLA counsel described it at a directions hearing, my application was a "back door" attempt to access documents originating from the County Court and Supreme Court. The critical question raised by this essay is whether the courts should have the absolute discretion they now have, to refuse access after the event to information already heard in open court.

In particular, the inappropriateness of the relevant County Court judge himself having the final say, in a case like the present one, is surely obvious.

From a wider perspective, the reality is that judges and lawyers, like the rest of us, occasionally make mistakes (www.forejustice.org is a handy entry point). The criminal appeals system does its best to rectify many such blunders, for example by ordering a new trial, or an acquittal. But in some cases, arguably like this one, an eventual acquittal may go nowhere near compensating a person who is originally wrongly convicted and imprisoned. However, that's all that the criminal appeals system can do.

I would argue that victims of judicial bungles deserve proper recompense, as much as do victims of crime, for example. Provision of such recompense is a community responsibility. But one can assess neither who are indeed victims of judicial blunders, nor the extent of recompense they deserve, without truly open justice. That is the most important message of this essay. Unpalatable as it may be to some in the bureaucracy, justice should unequivocally be seen NOT to have been done, if that is what has happened.