Access to high court documents
Discussion
I have a copy of a consent order, to which I was not a party, from Queens Bench division of High Court in the UK. In the NY commercial courts anyone can go online and easily download any document they like from a case but I can't find any similar service in the UK. All I can find is the rules surrounding release of court documents not how one goes about it. In this case I'd like to see the evidence one, possibly 2 of the parties submitted. Is this even possible in the UK? If not online, is it possible in writing or in person?
IANAL; dunno. The case only went to 'settlement' after the costs escalated beyond reason so i presume evidence was submitted prior. In the NY com courts I can just go online and download everything the parties submit to the court. I'm getting the feeling such a facility doesn't exist in the UK? Can I get it in person? No idea...
fblm said:
IANAL; dunno. The case only went to 'settlement' after the costs escalated beyond reason so i presume evidence was submitted prior. In the NY com courts I can just go online and download everything the parties submit to the court. I'm getting the feeling such a facility doesn't exist in the UK? Can I get it in person? No idea...
Doesn't the second post answer the question? Chrisgr31 said:
Doesn't the second post answer the question?
Kind of but I thought contrary to what I've read regarding the rules.Breadvan72 said:
You can inspect the court file . Any document submitted to the court is public absent an order to the contrary.
Ah ha! Don't tell me, one can inspect the file but not make copies? Do I just rock up at the court and ask to see the archives?timrud said:
No, BV is saying the only way you can have any access is by Order of the Court.
Only? I thought there were (expensive?) Information services that legal firms subscribed to containing all these. So he could from a friendly legal bod, or from joining a university library.Or is that not the case.
timrud said:
No, BV is saying the only way you can have any access is by Order of the Court.
I'm not sure that's what he said is it? Certainly in my efforts to find the answer I came across CPR 5.4c which seems to state an interested 3rd party can have access to statements of case without court order subject to no court order banning such access; which agrees with what BV said above. Now I just have to find out how one goes about it...Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 1st July 20:22
fblm said:
timrud said:
No, BV is saying the only way you can have any access is by Order of the Court.
I'm not sure that's what he said is it? Certainly in my efforts to find the answer I came across CPR 5.4c which seems to state an interested 3rd party can have access to statements of case without court order subject to no court order banning such access; which agrees with what BV said above. Now I just have to find out how one goes about it...At work, we now have access to one of the Crown Court IT systems (which is a national system and for the life of me, I can’t remember what it’s called!), which is pretty much updated in near enough real time, direct from the court, so I can certainly get copies of destruction orders (for drugs, weapons or computers, for example), remand/bail orders, sentencing orders... as a result it’s quite a while since I’ve had to ring the court and ask for a result/copy of an order. This also doesn’t give me access to documents submitted to the court, just stuff “generated” by the court.
Sorry, not much help, other than “ring the court and ask”! It might take a bit of Googling to get the court switchboard number to start with and then maybe two or three calls to get through to the right person. Not meant to be “clever”, but sometimes I certainly overlook the obvious/simple solution.
Jasandjules said:
You may have a copy of the decision but not the documents supplied. If you write/call the court they can send you a copy of the judgment.
The first sentence is incorrect. Any document that has been used in open court is open to public inspection, absent a court order to the contrary. All Queen's Bench proceedings are in open court absent an order to the contrary. You can make copies of public documents. Many (not all) judgments are posted online on Bailii, which is free to use.
The default setting is open justice, as confirmed time and again by judgments of the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
If a case settles before documents such as witness statements are used in court, then those documents are not public, but once the statements have been placed before the court, they become public. Ditto documents disclosed during litigation by the parties to the litigation. The issue is always: have the documents been placed before the Court? Statements of Case are always public, from the point when they are first served, absent order to the contrary.
The Crown Court digital case management system is one of the few bits of the CJS that is functional at present, but it is not germane to Queen's Bench cases.
Once again I wish that every sixteen year old was given a few lessons on the Constitution, the legal system, elections, the police, and so on. Civics, or call it what you will.
Breadvan72 said:
The first sentence is incorrect. Any document that has been used in open court is open to public inspection, absent a court order to the contrary. All Queen's Bench proceedings are in open court absent an order to the contrary. You can make copies of public documents.
Quite so but the last time I was there in person asking I was told by the "helpful staff" that this was a service they would not offer and they wouldn't even get me a copy of the judgment, I had to write/email and ask for it...... If you agree that your first sentence was incorrect, why did you post it? People come here for advice, so those who give advice ought, I suggest, to take care to be right most of the time, if only out of politeness. It appears that at least one poster above thought that your initial post on this thread gave a correct answer.
Court staff are under resourced and are often permanently grumpy. The service desk culture in the civil courts tends to be poor; but no one will pay to make it better. This is a bad thing, but neither the Government nor (it seems) many of the electorate value having a well maintained system of civil justice. As for the criminal justice system, let's not even go there.
The civil justice system of England and Wales (by this I really mean the business courts in London) is, by the way, a HUGE export business worth many millions and possibly billions of pounds annually. but it gets little support from the Government. Commercial courts applying English business law are active or are opening up all over the World. They are found in many places within the former or current British sphere of influence, and are even opening in places where few red coated soldiers ever set foot. Meanwhile back in Blighty, the Government closes court after court and pares the system to the bone. English law dispute resolution systems are available to people in all sorts of far flung places, but increasingly not so much in England and Wales.
When I started as a lawyer in the late 1980s, the average citizen could gain access to the civil courts via a merits and means tested system of legal aid. That is all but gone. Note that legal aid rates were always lower than private rates, so it was not a get rich quick scheme for lawyers, but it was analogous to a National Legal Service, and formed part of the postwar social fairness settlement that has been and is still being dismantled piece by piece by Tories and Blairites* (but mainly Tories).
* I add that the solution to Blairites is most definitely NOT Corbynites.
Court staff are under resourced and are often permanently grumpy. The service desk culture in the civil courts tends to be poor; but no one will pay to make it better. This is a bad thing, but neither the Government nor (it seems) many of the electorate value having a well maintained system of civil justice. As for the criminal justice system, let's not even go there.
The civil justice system of England and Wales (by this I really mean the business courts in London) is, by the way, a HUGE export business worth many millions and possibly billions of pounds annually. but it gets little support from the Government. Commercial courts applying English business law are active or are opening up all over the World. They are found in many places within the former or current British sphere of influence, and are even opening in places where few red coated soldiers ever set foot. Meanwhile back in Blighty, the Government closes court after court and pares the system to the bone. English law dispute resolution systems are available to people in all sorts of far flung places, but increasingly not so much in England and Wales.
When I started as a lawyer in the late 1980s, the average citizen could gain access to the civil courts via a merits and means tested system of legal aid. That is all but gone. Note that legal aid rates were always lower than private rates, so it was not a get rich quick scheme for lawyers, but it was analogous to a National Legal Service, and formed part of the postwar social fairness settlement that has been and is still being dismantled piece by piece by Tories and Blairites* (but mainly Tories).
* I add that the solution to Blairites is most definitely NOT Corbynites.
Breadvan72 said:
If you agree that your first sentence was incorrect, why did you post it? .
It is correct in its terms - they won't do it... BUT if you call or email they should give you the judgment. So it was correct as phrased. IF however you've been to the RCJ, waiting for the hour or so (in the one place that has no air con either it seems) to get to the front of the queue and then been given a file and the ability to copy documents, then that is a different matter.
Money is the issue: an online access system would cost money. Do not be surprised if you wait for an answer or get no answer. Because money.
When that *** Cameron swigged champagne to celebrate 800 years of Magna Carta in 2015, he should have choked on the bubbles. "To none shall we sell, to none deny right or justice". Yeah right.
NB: if you want witness statements that were not submitted to the court before the settlement, you won't get them.
When that *** Cameron swigged champagne to celebrate 800 years of Magna Carta in 2015, he should have choked on the bubbles. "To none shall we sell, to none deny right or justice". Yeah right.
NB: if you want witness statements that were not submitted to the court before the settlement, you won't get them.
Breadvan72 said:
Money is the issue: an online access system would cost money. Do not be surprised if you wait for an answer or get no answer. Because money.
What is worse now in the centralisation of many areas which result in call center operators having no idea what is happening and the MoP having no direct contact with the staff in the correct court - it leads to even more delay. And is a nightmare when a matter is urgent.Yesterday I received an interim order dated 27 Jun for a decision made on the papers on 02 May .....
Jasandjules said:
It is correct in its terms - they won't do it... BUT if you call or email they should give you the judgment. So it was correct as phrased.
...
No, it was plain wrong,. You wrote -...
Jasandjules said:
You may have a copy of the decision but not the documents supplied. ...
That says that the OP MAY NOT obtain the documents supplied to the court. That is incorrect. The OP may obtain those documents that were before the court before the case settled, absent a specific contrary order. If you meant to say something else, then your mode of expression was odd. Sometimes it is better just to say "OK, I was wrong". It's not a Capital crime to be wrong. If it were, I would have been hanged many times. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff