When is it appropriate to hold a private hearing?


13th July 2022

Examining a recent case where the judge criticised a decision by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for agreeing to sit in private, and to anonymise two complainant firms of solicitors, individual employees from those firms, a barrister and an expert. 

Anonymity

As a general rule, administration of justice within England and Wales requires that proceedings are held in public. As part of their obligation to maintain public confidence in the professions they regulate, healthcare regulators generally try to ensure that wherever possible, hearings are conducted in public.

There are, of course, exceptions to this general rule, with each regulator having their own policies and guidance about when anonymity or private hearings might be appropriate, often requiring one of the parties to make an application for such measures.

Lu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin)

In the recent case of Linda Lu v SRA, however, Mr Justice Kerr has criticised a decision by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for agreeing to sit in private, and to anonymise two complainant firms of solicitors, individual employees from those firms, a barrister and an expert.  The SDT’s decision was made without any application from those concerned. Conversely, Ms Lu’s application for anonymity, was rejected by the SDT.

Although the SDT found in Ms Lu’s favour in not finding misconduct, Ms Lu appealed the decision on the basis of the SDT’s flawed and inconsistent approach.

Discussion

Mr Justice Kerr said that there is a common misconception that if the identity of a person in legal proceedings is not directly relevant, there is no public interest in that person’s name being known. Being brutally honest about the impact that the, “creeping march of anonymity and redaction,” could have on open justice, Mr Justice Kerr stated that, “Clarity and a sense of purpose are lost. Reading or writing reports about nameless people is tedious.”

The judge discussed the applicable principles, stating that, “the common law principle of open justice is well known,” and that the trend towards less open justice and more anonymity, is not a good direction of travel for the law.

Mr Justice Kerr noted that whilst there was no appeal in respect of the SDT’s decision to hold the hearing in private, he felt that the decision to do so was convenient, rather than necessary. He specifically criticised the test for sitting in private as set out in rule 35 of The Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, as being, “out of tune,” with the common law principle of open justice, and expressed hope that it would be looked at again.

In discussing the SDT’s decision-making in respect of anonymity, Mr Justice Kerr stated that Courts and Tribunals should not be squeamish about naming innocent people caught up in the wrongdoing of others. “It is part of the price of open justice and there is no presumption that their privacy is more important than open justice.”

Conclusion

Whilst Mr Justice Kerr’s judgement may result in some internal discussions, and possibly changes, at the SDT, what other regulators make of it, remains to be seen. It may be though, that tribunals will need to take heed of Mr Justice Kerr’s judgment if they are to avoid similar appeals in the future.

If you would like advice on anything from this article

Speak to a member of our regulatory law team

Arrange a call

Enjoy That? You Might Like These:


articles

20 March -
The Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024 (AAPAO) was made on 13 March 2024. The AAPAO is significant for two reasons: It brings anaesthesia associates and physician associates into... Read More

articles

19 March -
How do you grow a business? Not an easy question to answer as there are so many elements for start-ups to consider, but taking on board advice from those that... Read More

case-studies

21 February -
In an appeal against a Fitness to Practise panel decision, the High Court considered the issue of the correct basis for a case being remitted for re-hearing. This proved to... Read More