Letter: Powers of the Attorney General
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Public debate concerning PII certificates ('Lyell admits ministers can refuse to sign gag orders', 25 March) has reached farcical levels of obscurity. The legal position is relatively clear.
1. Since a House of Lords decision in 1968, the Crown's privilege to prevent disclosure of documents in legal proceedings has become a right (no longer restricted to the Crown) to claim non-disclosure in the public interest. The decision whether to accept or reject the claim is taken by the court, if necessary after inspecting the documents in question.
2. In reaching its decision, the court is required to balance two considerations: the interest of the proper functioning of the public service, and the interest of the proper administration of justice.
3. It follows that the Crown (ie, the relevant minister) is under no legal duty to claim non-disclosure. He or she has a power to do so, having regard to his or her view of the relevance of the above considerations to the particular documents.
4. Ministers may consider themselves under some sort of non-legal obligation to claim non-disclosure in certain kinds of cases (eg, as regards certain classes of documents or affecting certain kinds of governmental activity). But that is a matter of self-constraining behaviour, not a matter of legal duty.
5. The arguments put forward by a minister claiming public interest immunity are at the discretion of the minister. A claim in a particular case may be the subject of political accountability to Parliament. False or misleading statements might be in contempt of court or might conceivably give rise to criminal or civil liability.
Yours truly,
PHILIP ALLOTT
Trinity College
Cambridge
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments