Why the Sharon Shoesmith decision is good for access to justice (and it has nothing to do with the case)

2 September 2010 by

Yesterday, Sharon Shoesmith was given permission to appeal in the judicial review of her dismissal by Haringey council as a result of the Baby Peter scandal. The case itself is complex and fascinating, but the detail should not overshadow the open and forward-thinking way in which the case has been dealt with.

The case was always likely to be full of controversy, complexity as well as salacious detail. This is not in itself remarkable; public law is often the cutting edge of social and political issues. What is unusual is the manner in which Mr Justice Foskett (full disclosure: he is a former member of my chambers) approached his task by not just in looking inwards to the legal system, but also outwards to the general public.

At every stage of this complex case, barristers’ submissionsimportant documents, judge’s remarks, and a full summary of the 176-page judgment have been made available through the judiciary’s new website; a model of clarity and communication which should be followed by other judges. It also suited this particular case, in which so many public bodies were criticised that there was a strong public interest in making the findings easy to access.

The reason this is important is that it represents the fulfilment of a longstanding principle of English law: that justice not only be done but be seen to be done. Recently, the size of judgments in the English courts has been steadily creeping up and they have now reached somewhat obese proportions. This could reflect a more thorough, or less succinct, judiciary, but it probably has more to do with the judges’ adoption of word processors and cut and paste. It is now standard for judgments to quote swaths of law and run to tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of words.

This is not benign trend. Longer and more complex judgments mean it is increasingly hard for lawyers to keep up even with their particular area of law, meaning that there are fewer generalists and more super-specialists. But at least lawyers get paid for keeping up to date; what hope do the general public have?

Moreover, the growing technical sophistication of the judiciary has not been matched by the judicial system as a whole. It is a wonder that judgments are publicly available at all, as the court system itself rarely publishes them. Rather, it is only thanks to the heroic efforts of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute, a charity funded by donations, that the public has access to a fairly comprehensive database of court decisions. The National Archives do run a free on-line legislation database, but lamentably only half of the law is up-to-date.

Most members of the public are only interested in the vaguest sense in most court decisions. But some judgments are genuinely important for many people; for example the recent ruling in Tchenguiz & Ors v Imerman – relating to the use of stolen evidence in court – which could impact anyone involved in divorce proceedings. That judgment ran to around 26,000 words and since it related to a point of difficult legal principle, it has been widely misunderstood.

This could have been rectified if the judges responsible had understood that it is not just their responsibility to decide the law but also to made their decision easy to understand. It is slightly unfair to pick on Lord Neuberger (who wrote the judgment in Imerman); he is clearer than most. But it would be a great help if court-authorisied summaries could be presented alongside judgments, explaining in brief the legal principles involved and highlighting the important part of the decision (what lawyers call the ratio decidendi, that is, the rationale).

This system is already successfully running in the new Supreme Court, which publishes summaries of all of its judgments on an attractive and simple website. This small effort may have done as much for access to justice as any of the new court’s innovations. But the Supreme Court only accounts for a tiny fraction of UK court judgments. This system should now be expanded to the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

A more open judicial system would help the press, prevent hasty reporting errors spreading via the internet, and improve access to justice for members of the general public who may (heaven forfend!) even end up spending less money on lawyers. So kudos to Mr Justice Foskett, and good luck in reading his judgment.

This article first appeared on guardian.co.uk

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

1 comment;

  1. Rick says:

    Adam, I agree on the whole but I think you’re being a bit optimistic about the conduct of the press. Some jorunalists want to distort these cases and mere facts won’t get in the way of their pre-prepared stories.

    My thoughts on your piece are here:


Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: