Amin v Director General of the Security Service & Ors

The principle of open justice is important, but it may be outweighed by the public interest in preserving confidentiality. Where the court has received a full confidential explanation supporting a public-interest-immunity certificate, and is satisfied that the underlying grounds remain unchanged, it may conclude that relaxing disclosure restrictions would be contrary to the public interest. A full review need not be undertaken where it would serve no useful purpose.

The appellant brought civil proceedings seeking damages for alleged ill-treatment in Pakistan. Irwin J struck out the claim as an abuse of process and granted permission to appeal: [2013] EWHC 1579 (QB). Confidentiality restrictions imposed during related criminal proceedings had been modified to permit limited use of sensitive material in the civil proceedings under an in camera regime. The appellant sought a review of those restrictions and directions requiring further information about a public-interest-immunity certificate. The issue was whether the Court of Appeal should undertake a full review or require disclosure enabling the certificate to be challenged.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Moore-Bick LJ for the court, dismissed the application. The issue was confined to whether the existing restrictions on public disclosure should be reviewed and whether further directions should be made concerning the public-interest-immunity certificate.

1. The principle of open justice is fundamental, but it is not absolute. The public interest in open justice may be outweighed by the public interest in preserving confidentiality.
2. The restrictions covered confidential criminal-proceedings rulings, an unredacted judgment, material disclosed by the Crown and skeleton arguments referring to that material. Those materials had already been made available to the appellant and his legal advisers. The outstanding question concerned disclosure to the public generally.
3. The court had received, in the appellant’s absence, a full explanation of the grounds supporting the Secretary of State’s May 2014 certificate, set out in a confidential schedule. It was satisfied that none of those matters had altered and that the nature of the grounds strongly suggested that they could not have done so. It was also satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to identify those grounds openly.
4. The court concluded that relaxing the existing regime, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, would clearly be contrary to the public interest. In those circumstances, a full review would serve no useful purpose, and the application for review and further directions was dismissed. The existing in camera regime therefore remained in place.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 26 June 2015, dismissed the application to review the confidentiality restrictions and to require further information concerning the public-interest-immunity certificate.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Irwin J struck out the civil claim as an abuse of process and granted permission to appeal: [2013] EWHC 1579 (QB).