Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor

Access to court documents by non-parties depends on the document and the applicable rule. Amended or evolving pleadings remain statements of case and are prima facie available under CPR Part 5.4C(1), subject to protective orders. Notices to admit and responses are not automatically available. Access under CPR Part 5.4C(2) is discretionary, with no presumption of disclosure. The court must balance open justice, the purpose and need for access, and any real risk of prejudice to pending or prospective criminal proceedings. Redaction should be limited to material creating a specific and substantial risk of prejudice.

Guardian News & Media Limited applied for copies of a generic Particulars of Claim, a Notice to Admit, the defendant’s Response, and a generic list of issues referred to during an open pre-trial review in the mobile phone voicemail interception litigation. The application was opposed in part by Glenn Mulcaire and News Group Newspapers Ltd on confidentiality and fair-trial grounds.

The generic list of issues was disclosed without objection, and redacted copies of the other documents were provided during the hearing. The issues were whether the documents were statements of case, how CPR Parts 5.4C(1) and 5.4C(2) applied, and whether material concerning possible future criminal proceedings should be redacted.

1. Document classification. The Generic Particulars of Claim was a statement of case within CPR Part 2.3(1). That included pleadings subsequently amended or developed as issues were refined. The Notice to Admit and the Response were not statements of case and were not automatically available under Part 5.4C(1).
2. Access under the CPR. Under Part 5.4C(1), the reasons for seeking a statement of case were of little importance unless an improper purpose was shown. Under Part 5.4C(2), there was no presumption of disclosure. The court nevertheless leaned towards disclosure of documents read or referred to in open court, considering open justice, the applicant’s reasons and intended use, the need for the documents, and competing risks of prejudice.
3. Fair-trial prejudice. Applying an approach analogous to the three-stage test in R v Sherwood [2001] 1 WLR 1983, the court found no substantial risk from most of the material. General allegations and descriptions already in the public domain did not justify restriction.
4. Redaction. Detailed allegations of methods in paragraph 21 of the Generic Particulars of Claim, and detailed admissions in paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 of the Response, could prejudice a future criminal trial and were to be redacted. Specific journalists’ and executives’ names were to be replaced by ciphers. The remaining material was to be disclosed to GNM and other media organisations requesting it. Costs and the precise form of order were reserved.

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