Fair trial or confidentiality?

Frankson and others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Johns v Same (CA TLR 12 May)

The claimants in separate actions were claiming damages for assault by a prison officer. In an investigation into their allegations the officers had made statements under caution, under the usual expectation that confidence would be maintained unless (i) they agreed to waive it or (ii) it was overridden by some greater public interest. The claimants sought disclosure of the statements under CPR rule 31.17, the issue being whether disclosure of the statements was necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs, within the terms of subparagraph (b) of the rule. The public interest in ensuring a fair trial in the light of all relevant evidence was of the utmost importance and one that inevitably weighed heavily in any balancing exercise. The countervailing public interest in the present case was one which was of very great weight and one which outweighed the desirability of maintaining confidentiality. However, it was necessary to maintain the confidence as far as it was possible to do so by imposing stringent conditions on the extent and manner of disclosure. That was a course which should always be followed in similar cases where the court decided that disclosure was required.