8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

2021 ◽  
pp. 190-203
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

Judicial Proceedings and Refusals to Disclose the Identity of Sources of Information

1984 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-289
Author(s):  
Yvonne Cripps
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Law ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Public Right

No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.Lord Scarman, speaking during the House of Lords report stage of the Contempt of Court Bill, stated that the relevant provision would “ameliorate the law relating to contempt of court so that the public right to be informed is not impeded or obstructed.” Similarly, Lord Morris, speaking in support of the same clause of the Bill, noted that it “creates a privilege in aid of truth, a privilege in aid of the public interest, a vital and essential privilege, particularly when one bears in mind the ever-encroaching power, whether direct or indirect, of the Executive over the well-being or otherwise of the taxpayer and voter.”

scholarly journals Copyright Policymaking as Procedural Democratic Process: A Discourse Theoretic Perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
Security Information ◽  
University Of Idaho

In Bring in the Nerds: Secrecy, National Security, and the Creation of Intellectual Property Law, David Levine juxtaposes two starkly different copyright policymaking processes: the closed international process that produced the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the relatively open domestic process that led quite dramatically to the scuttling of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). He reads the two processes against each other as a prelude to recommending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform. The amendment to FOIA that Professor Levine proposes would open the international IP policymaking process to greater public scrutiny by creating a qualified public right to "foreign relations" national security information, which was systematically withheld from the public during the ACTA negotiations. This article, prepared for the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal's 2012 Symposium, "Piracy and the Politics of Policing: Legislating and Enforcing Copyright Law," is a response to Professor Levine that draws on Jürgen Habermas' discourse theory of procedural democracy to examine the policymaking dynamics of ACTA and SOPA/PIPA and to assess the democracy-enhancing potential of the FOIA reform Professor Levine proposes.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

scholarly journals KETERBUKAAN INFORMASI PUBLIK DALAM PEMERINTAHAN TERBUKA MENUJU TATA PEMERINTAHAN YANG BAIK

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 135
Author(s):  
Nunuk Febriananingsih
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Public ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

<p>Kebebasan informasi merupakan hak asasi yang fundamental. Pengalaman selama ini menunjukkan bahwa informasi lembaga pemerintah dan non pemerintah dianggap sulit dijangkau masyarakat. Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam tulisan ini adalah bagaimana kesiapan lembaga-lembaga pemerintah dalam mengimplementasikan UU KIP dalam upaya mewujudkan tata pemerintahan yang baik. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif diketahui bahwa Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik memberi jaminan kepada masyarakat untuk mengakses informasi dari badan publik, meskipun lembaga pemerintah belum siap mengimplementasikan UU KIP. Hal ini terlihat dari belum tersedianya informasi terkait dengan urusan tata kepemerintahan seperti kebijakan publik dan pelayanan publik. Untuk itu Pemerintah perlu segera mengimplementasikan UU KIP sesuai dengan yang diamanatkan oleh PP Nomor 61 Tahun 2010 tentang pelaksanaan UU KIP.</p><p>Freedom of information is a fundamental human right. Past experience shows that information and non-governmental agencies are considered hard to reach communities. Issues raised in this paper is how the readiness of government agencies in implementing the law is in an effort to realize good governance. By using the method of normative legal research note that the Act No. 14 of 2008 concerning Freedom of Information gives assurance to the public to access information from public bodies, although the government agency implementing the law is not yet ready. This is evident from the unavailability of information relating to the affairs of governance such as public policy and public service. For the Government should immediately implement in accordance with the law is mandated by the Government Regulation Number 61 Year 2010 concerning the implementation of the law is.</p>

20. Public policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Admissible Evidence

The public interest in efficient and fair trials may be seen as underlying the rules of disclosure in civil litigation, whereby a litigant is obliged to make pre-trial disclosure of the documents on which he relies and the documents that adversely affect his own case or adversely affect, or support, another party’s case, even though such documents may not be admissible evidence at the trial. There is also a public interest in enabling material to be withheld where its production would harm the nation or the public service. Where these two kinds of public interest clash and the latter prevails over the former, relevant and otherwise admissible evidence is excluded at trial. Such material is said to be withheld by reason of ‘public interest immunity’. This chapter discusses the development of the modern law on public interest immunity; the scope of exclusion on grounds of public policy; and related procedural issues in civil and criminal cases.

21. Public policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 675-710
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Admissible Evidence

The public interest in efficient and fair trials may be seen as underlying the rules of disclosure in civil litigation, whereby a litigant is obliged to make pre-trial disclosure of the documents on which he relies and the documents that adversely affect his own case or adversely affect, or support, another party’s case, even though such documents may not be admissible evidence at the trial. There is also a public interest in enabling material to be withheld where its production would harm the nation or the public service. Where these two kinds of public interest clash and the latter prevails over the former, relevant and otherwise admissible evidence is excluded at trial. Such material is said to be withheld by reason of ‘public interest immunity’. This chapter discusses the development of the modern law on public interest immunity; the scope of exclusion on grounds of public policy; and related procedural issues in civil and criminal cases.

Nixon and the resurgence of executive privilege

2019 ◽  
pp. 140-178
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
White House ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
Security Concerns

With the passage and implementation of FOIA under Johnson, the CLDC moves into the next iteration by examining the implementation, oversight, and amendment phase. This was driven in large part by Nixon's actions after coming into office. While Nixon talked about transparency, he took steps to expand White House control over information, not just following the precedent of Eisenhower, but in expanding the scope of executive privilege. Nixon asserted that executive privilege covered all White House conversations with any staff, appointees, and employees, expanding beyond the national security concerns in the public interest of his predecessors. Nixon's actions to expand executive power left Congress in the position of again grappling with ways to respond, including eventually amending FOIA to strengthen the law as an oversight measure. The first FOIA amendments began under Nixon but would not be finalized until President Ford was in office.

An Overview

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Codes Of Practice ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is an unnecessarily complicated piece of legislation. Chapter 2 gives a simple overview of the Act: the framework for the new statutory right to information; the exemptions; the public interest test; the way in which the right is regulated through the Information Commissioner and codes of practice; enforcement through the tribunal system; and the relationship between freedom of information and data protection. The chapter considers the questions public authorities have to ask when someone seeks information and identifies the provisions concerning practice, procedure, and implementation, including the offence of altering records and the provision in section 78 that nothing in the Act is to be taken to limit the powers of a public authority to disclose information held by it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document