Cox v Jones

Witness statements standing as evidence in chief are ordinarily open to public inspection during trial. The burden lies on the person resisting inspection. Exceptions under CPR 32.13 must be construed narrowly because proceedings are ordinarily conducted in public. Nevertheless, the interests of justice may justify limited redaction, particularly to protect third parties from identification in allegations no longer pursued as factual claims. The court should balance public access, accurate reporting, the parties’ interests and the protection of third-party reputations. Under CPR 5.4, inspection of statements of case may be permitted where it serves accurate reporting, but documents containing abandoned allegations may be withheld where redaction would be disproportionate and inspection is unnecessary for proper understanding of the case.

The claimant and defendant were litigating ownership of properties following the breakdown of their relationship. The defendant’s pleadings and witness statement had contained allegations concerning the claimant’s relationships with other men. During the trial, those allegations were not put to the claimant and were abandoned as factual allegations, although the defendant continued to rely on his jealousy and perception of the claimant’s conduct.

The Times sought inspection of the defendant’s witness statement and the statements of case for accurate reporting. The central issues were whether inspection was required under CPR 32.13 and CPR 5.4, and whether the interests of justice justified withholding or redacting material.

1. Under CPR 32.13, a witness statement standing as evidence in chief is ordinarily open to inspection during trial. A person seeking to resist inspection bears the burden of bringing the case within one of the rule’s specified exceptions.

2. The principle that justice is conducted publicly is the overarching consideration. The exception based on the interests of justice must therefore be construed narrowly. It may nevertheless include protection against prejudice to other proceedings and protection of third parties whose reputations would be unfairly affected by publication of allegations abandoned as factual allegations.

3. The court must consider the position that would have existed if evidence in chief had been given orally. That comparison assists in deciding whether material should be modified or names withheld, but the court remains bound by the evidence actually given and by the terms of CPR 32.13.

4. The defendant’s witness statement was to remain open to inspection, but the names of individuals mentioned in connection with the abandoned relationship allegations were to be replaced by artificial initials, subject to one exception where removal would have been artificial because the individual had been repeatedly identified in cross-examination. The allegations concerning the claimant were not excised entirely because the defendant’s perceptions remained relevant to the case.

5. Under CPR 5.4, inspection of the Particulars of Claim and the Amended Defence and Counterclaim was permitted because accurate reporting and understanding of the case were legitimate considerations. Inspection of the Response to the Request for Further Information was refused. That document contained abandoned allegations, had not been formally amended, and could not proportionately be redacted, while proper understanding of the case did not require its disclosure.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.