Talk about frustrating.
Since 1924, when a motorcyclist was unfairly tried in England, the principle of open justice has been recognised in the idea that justice should not only be done, but also be seen to be done. It implies avoiding even the perception of some kind of conflict or corruption.
Everyone makes mistakes, and a somewhat random sample end up in court as a result. That sample of course includes some of those who run the legal system. Even judges make mistakes. In fact Lord Hewart, the original 1924 source of the principle of open justice was a prime (and ironic) example:
Hewart … has been called the worst Chief Justice since Scroggs and Jeffries in the seventeenth century. I do not think that this is quite fair. When one considers the enormous improvement in judicial standards between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries, I should say that, comparatively speaking, he was the worst Chief Justice ever. (Lord Devlin, via Spigelman J)
ouch! Anyway, the point is that when someone from the justice industry screws up, as we all do at times, that is the very time we need open justice. And what do we get instead?
Name suppression for an ex-MP accused of fraud. Not a good look, but less stunning than…
A secret decision in the Tuhoe Terrorist Trial Why? There was wall-to-wall media coverage of the raids. Shouldn’t we at least know why a whole decision is secret?
And if you’re minded consider such questions, you might also like two more great quotes from Spigelman
Publicity is the authentic hallmark of judicial as distinct from administrative procedure (Privy Council)
Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge, while trying, under trial (Jeremy Bentham)