HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have been unsuccessful in their appeal against a decision that a...
Court and tribunal hearings usually take place in public, as part of the principle of open justice. However, a judge can decide to hold a hearing in private if it is deemed necessary for the proper administration of justice. Recently, the Court of Protection refused a request for an observer to be permitted to join a hearing.
The hearing had been listed as being in public with reporting restrictions. Shortly before it was due to take place, an observer made a request to be permitted to join it. The Court found that it was important that a protected party in the hearing be informed of the request. She was in a state of heightened agitation after becoming aware of it, and the Court was informed that she did not wish the observer to attend.
The Court noted that, while the protected party's wishes and feelings were not determinative, they should be taken into account. The Court was required to balance the risk of any adverse impact on her against the need for open justice. It was submitted that the involvement of an observer in the hearing was likely to cause her distress. The observer, having learned of this, had indicated willingness to leave the hearing.
The Court noted that, under the Civil Procedure Rules, one of the exceptions to the principle that a hearing should take place in public is if it involves confidential personal financial matters. The protected party's financial position in respect of her care arrangements was to be discussed at the hearing and the exception therefore applied.
An exception also applies where a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of a child or a protected party. Concluding that there was a risk that the protected party would not be able to participate fully if the hearing were public, the Court agreed to proceed in private on the basis that this was necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.
