The PeaceKeepers organization continues its unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law and demanding accountability from the judiciary. In our ongoing series dissecting the High Court judgment and preparing for appeal, we turn our attention to a fundamental right that is crucial for transparent justice: the right to a truly accurate record of court proceedings. As the great legal reformer Jeremy Bentham famously stated, “Publicity is the very soul of justice.” Open justice is not merely about allowing public observation; it is about ensuring our courts are accountable for their decisions, and such accountability is impossible without a reliable and accurate record.
The Right to Record: A Core Principle Denied
Shockingly, Magistrates’ Courts in the UK do not routinely provide transcripts of their proceedings. Recognizing this critical gap, our representative, in a Magistrates’ Court hearing, made a simple and entirely reasonable request: permission to make a personal recording of the proceedings. The sole purpose was to secure an accurate record for a potential appeal, given the absence of official transcripts.
District Judge Healey refused this request, citing that a note-taker was sufficient and vaguely referencing a “risk” that the recording might be unlawfully published. High Court Judge Dame Hill subsequently upheld this decision, deeming it “not irrational.” PeaceKeepers is appealing this decision because we assert that both judges made fundamental errors of law:
- Application of the Wrong Legal Test: When a decision infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to open justice, the court is obligated to apply the highest standard of review. The question should not be whether the decision was merely “rational” (a very low bar), but whether the restriction on recording was strictly necessary. Judge Dame Hill’s use of the low “irrationality” standard failed to accord the principle of open justice its proper constitutional weight.
- Insufficient Reason for Refusal: A handwritten note is demonstrably inadequate for capturing an accurate, verbatim record, which is vital for any meaningful appeal. The refusal to allow a personal recording dismissed the tangible benefit of an accurate and verifiable record based solely on a speculative fear of misuse. The law demands clear and cogent evidence for restricting openness, not mere conjecture or hypothetical risks.
- Failure to Consider Modernity: The courts, in this instance, failed to acknowledge the advancements in technology and the evolving landscape of open justice in the modern age. While Magistrates’ Courts lag, other courts routinely record proceedings, and the UK Supreme Court even live-streams its hearings, setting a clear precedent for greater transparency. A personal recording imposes no cost on the public purse and no administrative burden on the court, as the individual would bear the expense and effort. Far from hindering justice, such a record would enhance its administration by ensuring greater accountability. Courts have a duty to facilitate justice, not to entrench themselves in outdated practices.
Accountability and the Path Forward
The deliberate avoidance of recording proceedings in Magistrates’ Courts is a significant concern for PeaceKeepers. These courts handle a substantial volume of statutory enforcement cases, such as council tax demands, and the lack of a public record allows them to operate without proper scrutiny.
However, our strategic victories, particularly on Ground 3 (where it was confirmed that a valuation tribunal is not an alternative remedy), mean that Magistrates’ Courts must now engage with our questions of law and are compelled to provide reasoned judgments. This is a critical breakthrough.
The key takeaway for every individual encountering the justice system is paramount: Do not leave the courtroom until you receive a reasoned judgment. If they refuse, understand that they cannot lawfully compel your departure or physically touch you. This is the simplicity and power of knowing your rights. The only way they can legitimately defer providing reasons for an order is by delaying the order itself. You are entitled to a reasoned judgment; without it, any order is void. You must stand firm on your rights to ensure you receive this crucial document.
This fight is about much more than individual cases. It is about the fundamental rights of every citizen, the integrity of justice, and the essential accountability of the judiciary. We reject the notion of an opaque or arbitrary system and are determined to see our courts uphold their duty to open, transparent, and accountable justice. The journey to the Court of Appeal underscores our commitment to this vital mission.
Feeling frustrated by the system is a sign that you know something is wrong. We’ve created a free online course to give you the knowledge to turn that frustration into effective action. Claim your free spot at https://peacekeepers.org.uk/enrol/.