V v C

Although the court may exclude the press and public where the interests of justice require it, open justice remains the strong default. A proportionate resolution may permit the hearing to proceed in public while restricting reporting and publication of transcripts until the conclusion of a possible criminal trial or further order.

The appellant applied under CPR 39.2 for the appeal hearing to take place in private. Following discussion, the appellant accepted that the hearing could be public if reporting of the hearing and publication of any transcript were prohibited until the conclusion of any criminal trial or further order.

The issue was whether that proposed arrangement provided a proportionate resolution of the tension between the interests of justice and the public interest in open justice.

1. The application for the hearing to be conducted wholly in private was not granted. The court recognised the potential need to exclude the press and public in the interests of justice, but emphasised the strong public interest in conducting justice in public whenever possible.
2. The court adopted a proportionate solution to the competing considerations. The appeal hearing was directed to take place in public, subject to restrictions preventing reporting of what occurred at the hearing and preventing the taking or publication of any transcript of a recording until after the conclusion of any criminal trial or without further order of the court.
3. The court authorities were requested to take appropriate steps to ensure that persons attending the hearing were aware of the restrictions.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appellant applied for the appeal hearing to be private under CPR 39.2. The court directed that the hearing proceed in public, subject to restrictions on reporting and transcript publication.