Scorthorne, R (on the application of) v Peterborough County Court

During a civil trial, a non-party has an automatic right under CPR 32.13 to inspect a witness statement relied on as evidence in chief. No formal application or prior court order is required.

Any restriction must be based on a recognised ground for derogation, require a proper balancing exercise, and be necessary and proportionate. The court should ordinarily hear the person seeking inspection and consider lesser measures, such as redaction or withholding particular passages, before refusing inspection altogether. Post-trial access is a distinct matter and is not available as of right.

The claimant, a member of the public who observed court hearings, sought judicial review of a Deputy District Judge’s refusal to permit inspection of witness statements during a fast-track personal injury trial in Peterborough County Court.

The Deputy District Judge treated a formal application as a prerequisite and indicated that she would have been minded to refuse access because the statements contained medical and other sensitive information. Permission for judicial review was refused on paper, although the reviewing judge accepted that no formal application was required and considered that the matter fell within the Judge’s discretion.

The claimant renewed his application. The central issues were whether inspection during trial was automatic, how any derogation should be considered, and whether the claim should proceed despite becoming academic.

1. Permission refused. The claim had become hypothetical and academic because the trial was over and the claimant no longer required inspection. There were no exceptional public-interest circumstances justifying continuation.
2. CPR 32.13 creates an automatic right for non-parties to inspect witness statements relied on as evidence in chief during a hearing. The right does not depend on a formal or informal application, or on a court order.
3. Any derogation must rest on one of the narrow grounds in rule 32.13(3). The court must consider those grounds properly and balance open justice, the parties’ rights and interests, and the justification for restriction.
4. The person seeking inspection should ordinarily be heard where practical. The court must also consider less intrusive measures, including redaction or withholding particular passages, before refusing inspection altogether.
5. The post-trial access considered in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 was distinct from inspection during trial. Post-trial access is not an automatic right.
6. The Deputy District Judge had materially erred by treating a formal application as a precondition and by refusing to hear further submissions. Her reference to being minded to refuse access did not show that she had made a concluded decision under rule 32.13(2). The error was capable of affecting the outcome because sensitive medical information might have been separated from other evidence.
7. Although the claimant’s arguments were strongly arguable, a declaration would make no practical difference and authoritative guidance already existed in Greystoke v The Financial Services Authority [2020] EWHC 1011 (QB).

The judgment itself records a paper refusal of permission by HHJ de Bertodano sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on 10 September 2025. The claimant orally renewed his application before the present court, which refused permission.