POWER OF COURT HEARING CERTAIN APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS TO SIT IN PRIVATE (Hansard, 15 October 1968)

§ Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I suggest that we take at the same time Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, at end insert: (1A) Without prejudice to the next following subsection, the court hearing the appeal or application shall give its decision and the reason for its decision in public unless there are good and sufficent grounds for giving them in private and in that case the court shall state those grounds in public.

§ Sir L. Heald
I should say a word of explanation about the origin and effect of the Amendments, particularly as this is a Private Member's Bill.
The Bill originated with a report of the Law Commission which was directed towards and dealt with certain anomalies and loopholes in the law relating to the power of the courts, particularly the appellate courts, to sit in camera. It has long been agreed that there are certain cases and circumstances in which the court should sit in camera. It has equally always been recognised that those occasions should be limited to circumstances when they were absolutely necessary. There was never any intention on anyone's part to interfere with the freedom of the Press or with the opportunity that everyone has to know exactly what the courts are doing and why they are doing it.
It is right to mention that at no stage in this House was any kind of opposition raised towards the Bill, although the Solicitor-General and I at more than one stage of the proceedings both stuck our necks out, if one may use that expression not improperly to suggest that anyone who thought that there was unreasonable interference with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the Press would have the opportunity to say so; but no one said a word. Indeed, on Third Reading I attempted to speak and was very properly rebuked by you, Mr. Speaker, because there was not a sufficient number of hon. Members who were prepared to ask for any discussion.
Thus the matter went from this House to another place. When it arrived there, the noble Lord, Viscount Colville of Culross, undertook the onerous task of introducing it. He let himself in for a certain amount of trouble because when the matter came before another place, it appeared that there was a fear among those responsible for the reporting of cases in the court that the Bill might have an effect in preventing them from acquainting the public with matters about which the public ought to know.
To cut a long story short, thanks to the noble Viscount's skilful and tactical efforts, agreement was obtained even between eminent judicial authorities and in the end these Amendments were devised.
339 Their purpose is to provide what in any event would be expected to be the case. It is right that it should be made clear that even if a court sits in public to hear the evidence, the actual judgment and the reasons for it should, except in the most unusual circumstances, always take place in public.
That is the object of the Amendments and I think that they will satisfy, and have satisfied, those concerned. I would like to repeat that there never was any intention to introduce—and I hope, if I might be allowed to say so, that it would never be suspected that I would be a party to introducing—a Bill which would interfere with the freedom of speech of the Press in reporting. All sides have accepted the Amendments and I hope that this House will accept them, also.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine)
I would like to say a word on the Amendments. I entirely agree with the account of the background and history of the matter which has been given to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). I am sure that everybody, on both sides of the House, would accept without question what the right hon. and learned Member has just said about his own disposition in the matter.
In another place concern was expressed about the effect which the Bill might have on future applications to hear proceedings in private. The noble and learned promoter of the Bill in another place had discussions with several of his colleagues, and eventually two Amendments were made to the Bill in Committee which are the Amendments now before the House.
The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that in any case where the court hears an appeal or application in private it shall give its decision and the reasons for its decision in public unless that would be prejudicial to the interests of the parties. These Amendments were put forward, I think it can be agreed, as a form of compromise between the views of those who considered that this provision was unnecessary and those who considered it indispensable, and they met with complete approval. That being so, the Government are willing to accept the 340 compromise which was arrived at in another place and which will result, we believe, in clarifying the law.
I hope that the Amendments will meet with general approval here.