Don’t throw the BAILII out with the bath water

26 September 2011 by

The Guardian published an editorial today arguing that court judgments should be opened up to the public. The editorial challenges the fact that BAILII, the charity which currently publishes most judgments online, is not searchable on Google.

Broadly speaking, it is good to see The Guardian taking up this somewhat esoteric but important topic. As I have argued on a number of occasions (see e.g. Making Law Accessible to the Public) the Ministry of Justice needs to do more to make “raw” law, that is judgments and legislation, accessible online. But it is important to focus on the right issues.

Case law should, ideally, be searchable on Google. BAILII explains the reason for not making it so:

  • Occasionally it is necessary to remove a judgment from the BAILII database, for example if BAILII has been provided with a copy of a judgment which discloses confidential information such as the name of a child. This is more difficult once the judgment has been indexed by a search engine, and cannot be carried out promptly.
  • If the text of a judgment is amended by the judge, the unamended version should not be available in the cache of a search engine.

This is a practical issue between BAILII and the Ministry of Justice, not a deliberate or pernicious ploy to keep judgments out of the public domain. As I have said before, BAILII has a good, simple interface and its search works very well. Although it has few of the baubles of Westlaw (a very expensive subscription service which only lawyers tend to have access to), it is easy to use and reliable.

I can see the technical point BAILII is making; once something is out on Google, it is instantly and in effect permanently outside of the control of the originating source. It would therefore be practically impossible to escape Google’s cache in order to remove the text of judgments. That being said, Google does have the power to remove, for example, libellous material and sometimes does. Given that Google itself is an enthusiastic publisher and indexer of public data it may be that a creative solution is possible.

The Guardian also praise Judgmental, a project which aims to put judgments online and make them Google searchable. We should fully support any citizen-led efforts to bring the law to more people. But this website appears to be down at the moment, as was the last time I was trying access it for an article. This is not a good sign.

The danger in all of this laudable focus on alternative sources for online judgments is that BAILII will go under as a result of lack of funds. It has recently lost a major funder and is appealing to chambers and solicitors’ firms at the moment for more money.

It would be a tragedy if BAILII folded, not least for legal blogs which rely on it. I also doubt that Judgmental or another public service would be in a position to pick up the pieces. BAILII costs £160,000 per year to run; I doubt that the Ministry of Justice would foot this bill, assuming it could offer the same quality of service for the same money once the costs of its bureaucracy were added on. And the knowledge and experience BAILII has developed would be lost too.

The Ministry of Justice currently runs, a nice website let down by its slow updates. As I have argued before, public authorities should be barred from relying on a new law until it is easily accessible online. This issue is probably more urgent at present than forcing BAILII and Google to hold hands.

Another focus, which The Guardian also mentions, should be the publication of judgment summaries and press releases as the UK’s Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights already do to great effect. Lord Neuberger, the head of the Court of Appeal, has supported this idea and his court should therefore lead the way.

So it is right to pressure the current Government, which seem to like the idea of data being open and accessible, to do more on access to online justice. But in doing so, it is important to not throw out the BAILII with the bath water.

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

Related posts


  1. On the Google issue – BAILII prohibits crawlers via its robots.txt file but that doesn’t seem to stop Google indexing pages that are linked to from outside BAILII. Google reports 64,000 hits on BAILII out of the 200,000 BAILII says it hosts. So it seems there’s a good chance you’ll find a case on BAILII via Google unless it’s one of no interest to anyone!

  2. Joe Reevy says:

    Bailii also is in need of support from users – so pop a donation across to them!
    They are oon our charity donation list.

  3. Julie says:

    Thank you Anita. I also regularly use google to find cases on Bailii and don’t understand what the problem is. I agree that Bailli is value for money.

  4. Rex Black says:

    Google often takes weeks to get removed or updated documents out of its search engine, on the rare occasions it bothers to process the updates at all; I’ve had this problem with web sites I run – and Google will gaily ignore robots.txt, noarchive, and everything else if the site is a popular one. I was very surprised to see the Guardian, which has from time to time been in favour of personal privacy, boosting Google in this way. Did they actually talk to anyone at BAILII?

  5. Anita Davies says:

    I think BAILLI is great – and was a little confused by the Guardian’s article. I search BAILLI all the time using google. As long as you know some part of the case name or the nuetral citation, if you type that in to google and add ‘BAILLI’ as part of the search terms then the BAILLI transcript generally appears. It is true, BAILLI results will not appear if you just type in random search terms like ‘injunction, planning, rotherham’ but as long as you know what case you are looking for roughly and have some information, then it works.

  6. Carrefax says:

    This is an excellent post. I sincerely hope Judgmental have identified the risk Google’s indexing system presents here and have come up with an effective method of dealing with it; my guess, however, is that they have not.

    We should be getting behind BAILLI, encouraging a better understanding of the work they do and ensuring they have a viable future.

  7. TJ McIntyre says:

    I don’t see why noarchive and nosnippet meta tags wouldn’t address most of BAILII’s concerns in relation to caching. In the rare cases where it wouldn’t, the URL removal tool is now quite effective on Google and Bing. Time to revisit the issue I suspect.

  8. TJ McIntyre says:

    I don’t see why wouldn’t address most of BAILII’s concerns in relation to caching. In the rare cases where it wouldn’t, the URL removal tool is now quite effective on Google and Bing. Time to revisit the issue I suspect.

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.




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: