10. Public interest immunity

2019 ◽  
pp. 192-204
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter first explains exclusion of evidence on the grounds of the PII doctrine in relation to the public interest in non-disclosure of documents. The chapter examines areas of public interest that are covered by possible PII claims. These include national security, defence and foreign policy, protection of children, the identity of police informers, and confidential records held by public bodies.

10. Public interest immunity, closed material procedures, and disclosure

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter, which deals with public interest immunity (PII) and disclosure in criminal and civil cases, first explains exclusion of evidence on the grounds of the PII doctrine in relation to the public interest in non-disclosure of documents. It then considers disclosure in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 as well as disclosure in civil proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules. The chapter also examines areas of public interest that are covered by possible PII claims, including national security, defence and foreign policy, protection of children, the identity of police informers, and confidential records held by public bodies. It concludes with an outline of the Closed Material Procedures (CMPs).

scholarly journals The standing of the public interest

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (49) ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitai Etzioni
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
The Common ◽  
Liberal Communitarianism

Liberal communitarianism holds that a good society is based on a carefully crafted balance between individual rights and the common good; that both normative elements have the same fundamental standing and neither a priori trumps the other. Societies can lose the good balance either by becoming excessively committed to the common good (e.g. national security) or to individual rights (e.g. privacy). Even societies that have established a careful balance often need to recalibrate it following changes in historical conditions (such as the 2001 attacks on the American homeland) and technological developments (such as the invention of smart cell phones).

Should We Rely on Whistleblowers?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahul Sagar
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The Public

This chapter examines the circumstances under which an official will be justified in violating laws that prohibit unauthorized disclosures of classified information. It explains why we cannot rely on the practice of whistleblowing to counter the misuse of state secrecy. It argues that an official may “blow the whistle” if he/she encounters classified information that clearly reveals wrongdoing posing an immediate and serious threat to the public interest, and if he/she makes a good faith effort to minimize the harm that the publication of this information may cause national security. It also asserts that the official must identify himself/herself so that we can assess whether his/her view of what constitutes a wrongful exercise of executive power is a disinterested one. Finally, it shows that would-be whistleblowers have little incentive to disclose their identity, because doing so makes them vulnerable to retaliation from their managers and colleagues.

Whistleblowing, National Security and the Constitutional Freedom of Political Communication

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-365
Author(s):  
Danielle Ireland-Piper ◽  
Jonathan Crowe
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Responsible Government ◽  
Intelligence Operations ◽  
The One ◽  
Types Of Information ◽  
The Relationship

Whistleblowers promote the values of responsible government and the rule of law by drawing attention to criminal or other forms of wrongdoing in publicly accountable organisations. This article explores the relationship between whistleblowing, national security and the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution. Legislation such as the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (‘ Crimes Act’), the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) (‘ ASIO Act’) and the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (Cth) (‘ Border Force Act’) makes it an offence to reveal certain types of information obtained as a Commonwealth officer. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (‘ PIDA’) offers limited protection to whistleblowers in the Commonwealth public sector, but this protection does not extend to information relating to intelligence operations. We argue that blanket criminalisation of unauthorised disclosure by Commonwealth officers or contractors under s 70 of the Crimes Act, along with similar prohibitions in s 35P of the ASIO Act and s 42 of the Border Force Act, offend the implied freedom of political communication by failing to strike an adequate balance between national security and organisational secrecy, on the one hand, and public debate and discussion, on the other. The courts should read down these laws to protect disclosures that hold significant public interest for discussion and debate over government policy or the performance of government officials.

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.

Journalistic confidentiality in an age of data surveillance

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Ananian-Welsh
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
National Security ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Telecommunications Industry ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
Data Surveillance

This article examines two key components of the Australian Government’s data surveillance framework and critiques their impact on journalistic confidentiality. The 2015 mandatory data retention scheme and the 2018 telecommunications industry assistance scheme have been the subjects of considerable controversy and ongoing parliamentary reviews. The combined effect of these provisions is that journalists are unable to confidently fulfil their ethical obligation to maintain source confidentiality. The article recommends targeted reforms to more explicitly and appropriately balance the public interest in journalistic confidentiality (and relatedly, democracy, public accountability and the rule of law) against law enforcement and national security objectives.

Crafting a New Compact in the Public Interest

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-56
Author(s):  
Keith B. Alexander ◽  
Jamil N. Jaffer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Media Environment ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fair Treatment ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Relationship

Leaks of highly classified information, popular views of government national security efforts, and changes in the media environment in recent years have resulted in a significant decay in the relationship between the government and the media and public trust in both institutions. To correct this harmful trend, a significant recalibration of the government-media relationship and the establishment of a new compact between them would best serve the public interest. The government should be more transparent about its national security efforts and more self-critical in classification decisions and should explain national security activities it undertakes, defending and justifying classified programs in detail whenever possible. The press must likewise be willing to afford the government fair treatment, including noting government efforts to protect national security, and to appropriately balance civil rights and privacy. It is important that these institutions work together to establish new mores on classification, government transparency, and a more responsible approach to classified disclosures.

scholarly journals Custodian Legal Culture - Enabling Multi-Stakeholder Research Collaborations Between Academia and Government in the UK

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stergios Aidinlis
Keyword(s):  
Data Sharing ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Public Bodies

BackgroundEmpirical studies suggest that some public bodies in England are very reluctant to grant access to administrative data for various purposes. This poster presents the conclusions drawn in my so-far research on the driving forces of administrative discretion in respect of data sharing for social research in the public interest in England. ObjectivesThis poster aims to work towards answering a fundamental question for methodological models for engagement and research co-production between academia and government. This question is: what are the driving forces behind the exercise of data custodian discretion when it comes to deciding whether they will disclose it or not for research purposes? Methods (including data)First, this poster presents the findings of a qualitative case-study involving semi-structured interviews with individuals working for three different public bodies in England, two data providers and a body facilitating administrative data sharing for research. Second, it integrates a pilot survey which will aim to elicit the perspectives of ADR conference attendees, both admin data researchers and other stakeholders, on the crucial questions that revolve around the disclosure of data for research by different providers across the UK. FindingsI propose a distinction between structural (e.g. the law/ infrastructural decision-making models) and cultural (e.g. perceptions of data ownership / trust-distrust in data sharing collaborators) influences, claiming that the latter are more salient in steering custodian discretion to share administrative data for research in practice than the former. I identify five main candidate cultural drivers and elaborate on them. ConclusionsWithout a sound socio-legal understanding of the driving forces of discretionary legal powers to share data on behalf of the providers, building bridges between them and the academic community in the interest of promoting social research in the public interest will remain a resilient challenge.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document