Public Interest Immunity and Statutory Privilege

1983 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-149
Author(s):  
Ian Eagles
Keyword(s):  
Potential Barrier ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Creation ◽  
As If ◽  
Public Bodies

The rules governing the exclusion of evidence in the public interest are usually discussed as if they were wholly the creation of the common law. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a submerged statutory underside to Crown privilege, an underside which is no less important for being hitherto largely invisible to the judicial eye. More than 100 Acts and statutory instruments restrict the use which government departments and other public bodies may make of the information they acquire. Each such Act or instrument is a potential barrier to the use of the information in the courtroom. Just why this vast mass of legislation should have remained for so long forensically invisible is not immediately apparent. It is true that most of it was drafted to regulate disclosure outside the courtroom and its evidentiary provisions are often tucked away in obscure subsections whose import may be unclear to those administering the Acts.

scholarly journals A Fairly Genuine Comment on Honest Opinion in New Zealand

2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Bevan Marten
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Common

This paper discusses the defence of honest opinion in relation to New Zealand’s Defamation Act 1992. Two key issues are addressed: the place of the common law “public interest” requirement in the New Zealand context, and the concept of “genuineness” under section 10 of the Act. It is argued that the public interest requirement should be abolished, and that the relevant statutory provisions be redrafted to achieve this. The redraft would also clarify a potential flaw in the wording of the defence that may render it unavailable to some defendants who are quoting the opinions of others.

scholarly journals Is Hyde Park Hiding the Truth? An Analysis of the Public Interest Defence to Copyright Infringement

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A Yurkowski
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

The existence, or not, of a public interest defence in the sphere of copyright law has been an issue of contention for many years. Due to the comprehensive statutory fair dealing defences available, only a handful of defendants have sought to rely on this defence, which exists at common law. However, when the defence has been raised, the judges have been unable to reach a consensus on its status, scope and indeed availability as a defence to breach of copyright.This paper analyses the extent to which public interest concerns are addressed in statutory copyright law, and presents arguments in support of extending the common law public interest defence to copyright law. However, any such defence must be limited in its scope and applicability, so as to avoid becoming a "thieves charter".

Biobanking and Privacy in India

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin Chaturvedi ◽  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas ◽  
Vasantha Muthuswamy
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Broad Consent ◽  
Indian Council ◽  
Privacy Concerns ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Guidelines ◽  
Biobank Research ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Common

Biobank-based research is not specifically addressed in Indian statutory law and therefore Indian Council for Medical Research guidelines are the primary regulators of biobank research in India. The guidelines allow for broad consent and for any level of identification of specimens. Although privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, courts have limited this right when it conflicts with other rights or with the public interest. Furthermore, there is no established privacy test or actionable privacy right in the common law of India. In order to facilitate biobank-based research, both of these lacunae should be addressed by statutory law specifically addressing biobanking and more directly addressing the accompanying privacy concerns. A biobank-specific law should be written with international guidelines in mind, but harmonization with other laws should not be attempted until after India has created a law addressing biobank research within the unique legal and cultural environment of India.

scholarly journals The Registration of Special Notarial Bonds under the Security by Means of Movable Property Act and the Publicity Principle: Lessons from Developments in Belgium

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Lefa Sebolaisi Ntsoane
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The South ◽  
Registration System ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
As If

Many people do not own immovable property to offer as security but do have movable property which can be offered as security for the repayment of a debt. In today’s world where the costs of a motor car can exceed that of a house, the increasing value of movable things makes it a popular and appropriate security object. Under the common law pledge, delivery of the movable property from the pledgor (debtor) to the pledgee (creditor) has to take place in order for the pledgee to acquire a real security right in the property. Delivery of the property is aimed at ensuring compliance with the publicity principle. The principle of publicity entails that the existence of a real security must be known to the public. With the aim to promote commerce, certain countries have taken the initiative in reforming their laws on pledge to allow the debtor to retain possession of the movable property that serves as security. Furthermore, technology has advanced to a level where national registration systems which can be accessed easily and at minimal costs can be established. The South African legislature enacted the Security by Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993 which makes provision for a pledge without possession. This Act deemed a duly registered notarial bond over specified movable property to have been delivered as if delivery has in fact taken place thereby substituted the common law delivery requirement with registration in the Deeds Office. On 30 May 2013, the Belgian House of Representatives adopted a Belgian Pledge Act which allows for a non-possessory pledge on movable property subject to registration in a newly created public register called the Electronic Pledge Register. This article therefore examines the efficacy of the registration system of special notarial bonds in South African law and whether this form of registration complies with the publicity principle looking at the developments of a computerised registration system taking place in Belgium.

scholarly journals A Rational Approach to Cabinet Immunity Under the Common Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Campagnolo
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Rational Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Good Government ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government

The public interest immunity (PII) doctrine empowers the government to suppress information, the disclosure of which would injure the community as a whole. However, when such information is relevant to the fair adjudication of legal rights, a tension arises between two competing aspects of the public interest: the interest of good government and the interest of justice. This tension raises questions of constitutional importance. Who should decide which aspect of the public interest must win? How should that decision be made? The aim of this article is to address these questions. In the first section, it is claimed that the courts, as opposed to the government, should have the final word on the validity of PII claims, as it would be contrary to the rule of law to prevent them from meaningfully reviewing the validity of PII claims and controlling the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings. In addition, because of their greater independence and impartiality, judges are better placed than public officials to fairly adjudicate PII claims, especially when the government is a party to the proceedings. No classes of government secrets, not even Cabinet secrets, should be exempted from judicial review. While there is a consensus on these principles under the common law, the level of deference afforded to Cabinet immunity claims, and the way in which these claims are assessed, is not consistent in the Commonwealth. To fix this shortcoming, in the second section, it is argued that the courts should adopt a new rational approach consisting of four pillars: a narrow standard of discovery, an executive onus of justification, a cost-benefit analysis, and a judicial duty to minimize injury. The implementation of a rational approach would bolster predictability, certainty, and transparency in the judicial assessment of Cabinet immunity claims, and foster a better balance between the interests of good government and justice.

scholarly journals Thabo Meli Revisited: The Pernicious Effects of Result-Driven Decisions

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Arenson
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Natural Consequence ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
The Common

Despite the hackneyed expression that ‘judges should interpret the law and not make it’, the fact remains that there is some scope within the separation of powers doctrine for the courts to develop the common law incrementally. To this extent, the courts can effectively legislate, but only to this limited extent if they are to respect the separation of powers doctrine. On occasion, however, the courts have usurped the power entrusted to Parliament, and particularly so in instances where a strict application of the existing law would lead to results that offend their personal notions of what is fair and just. When this occurs, the natural consequence is that lawyers, academics and the public in general lose respect for both the judges involved as well as the adversarial system of criminal justice. In order to illustrate this point, attention will focus on the case of Thabo Meli v United Kingdom in which the Privy Council, mistakenly believing that it could not reach its desired outcome through a strict application of the common law rule of temporal coincidence, emasculated the rule beyond recognition in order to convict the accused. Moreover, the discussion to follow will demonstrate that not only was the court wrong in its belief that the case involved the doctrine of temporal coincidence, but the same result would have been achieved had the Council correctly identified the issue as one of legal causation and correctly applied the principles relating thereto.

Оксана Кукуруз, Взаимодействие политики и права в процессе общественной трансформации в Украине и Республике Польша

2021 ◽  
pp. 158-162
Author(s):  
Ivanna Kyliushyk
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Book Research ◽  
Social Transformation ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Effective Development ◽  
Politics And Law

The author of the book research the interaction of politics and law as two important social regulators that have a common goal the effective development of society. The author defines the real models of interaction between politics and law, which have formed in Ukraine and the Republic of Poland in the process of social transformation, and the creation of an appropriate model, which should be based on the goal of ensuring the public interest.

scholarly journals WYBRANE ZAGADNIENIA WŁASNOŚCI ZABYTKÓW I DZIEŁ SZTUKI W PRAWIE PRL-U

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Works Of Art ◽  
The Common

LEGAL STATUS OF CULTURAL PROPERTY AND WORKS OF ART IN THE PRL Summary The article deals with the legal status of works of art and cultural property in the Polish legislation during communism period. Classifying those objects as private property was considered as a very difficult task, because of their material value and the public interest in saving them for future generations. The strict limitations of individuals property were perceived as unusual and as a result a new sort of property – the private cultural property was distinguished. Moreover, the concepts of the common heritage and res extra commercium could be observed in the light of the PRL ideas. It should be emphasized that the above mentioned theories for improving cultural heritage regulations are the most popular in the nowadays’ international discussion.

Eisenhower’s executive privilege and the public interest

2019 ◽  
pp. 54-84
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
White House ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation

This chapter delves into the depths of one of the most important developments within modern American politics, the creation and institutionalization of executive privilege. In facing a fervent Congress in the grips of McCarthyism, Eisenhower issued a letter denying testimony to the Senate for the Army-McCarthy hearings. His letter included a memo from Attorney General Brownell that claimed the president had an inherent constitutional privilege to deny information to Congress or the public if it was in the public interest and for national security. This action institutionalized the Cold War Paradigm in the executive branch and created an extra-constitutional power for the president. Eisenhower issued several executive orders concerning classification and public dissemination of government information, along with the creation of the Office of Strategic Information (OSI) within the Commerce Department to oversee these policies. Eisenhower claimed historic precedent to justify his inherent constitutional power, regardless, it showed a learned response that changed executive power. Congress would respond in 1955 by creating the Special Subcommittee on Government Information chaired by Rep. John Moss, given jurisdiction for oversight on all executive branch information policies and practices. With the issue of freedom of information institutionalized in Congress, a 12-year legislative power struggle would unfold between Congress and the White House ending with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document