Remaining anonymous during a legal case

onrail

We've heard a lot about the issue of anonymity during rape/abuse cases recently, both sides of the border - but don't want to open that can of worms again.

Take a case (for instance) where someone had a reason to sue for medical malpractice but was reluctant to make any details public because of the personal/sensitive details involved - is there a mechanism to keep all details away from the public/media?

UK/NI legislation is of particular interest (as I'm from North of the border), but nevertheless, are there any experiences here north or south?

Peregrinus

There's no established mechanism for that particular case.

As we know, there are rules in place for those accused of sexual crimes, and for their accusers, and there are rules in place for children. After that it's pretty make-it-up-as-you-go-along; in general justice is administered in public, so we are all entitled to know all about the proceedings and who the parties are it if we care to, but judges have a lot of discretion and if you can persuade the judge that there's a good reason, he can impose reporting restrictions to protect somebody's identity. Of the top of my head, I recall cases in the UK where serving officers of the intelligence services gave evidence anonymously, and you can see why that would be allowed.

But they do take a fairly restrictive approach to this; witnesses who are police informers, for example, are usually identified even though obviously they are not much use a police informers after that, plus they may be in some personal danger. I think "I would be embarrassed if everybody knew about my digestive problems" is not going to cut it. In general the administration of justice in public is seen as quite important; you need fairly weighty considerations before you can persuade judges to compromise it.

onrail

Seems pretty conclusive then!

But in reality, if such a situation arises (and the complainant simply would not allow details be made public), is a judge likely to put more importance on public transparency rather than justice being done?

Samuel T. Cogley

Justice has to be seen to be done so absent very compelling circumstances the courts operate in public. What I'm trying to say is it's not justice being done vs. transparency, they're one and the same.

Heard tell of simple cases being conducted in Irish to avoid earwigging but I'm not sure that's much help here.

nuac

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Justice has to be seen to be done so absent very compelling circumstances the courts operate in public. What I'm trying to say is it's not justice being done vs. transparency, they're one and the same.

Heard tell of simple cases being conducted in Irish to avoid earwigging but I'm not sure that's much help here.

I have run come cases in Irish, and have assisted other lawyers in doing so. These were for clients who wished to have the case heard in Irish as a matter of principle rather than to conceal evidence.

Irrespective of the venue or language used, the legal world is a small bubble. If interesting evidence is likely word will get out.

E.g.there is no surer way to attract attention to a planning notice than to publish it in Irish.