Report this comment to a moderator

Dinah Rose QC apologises to court for handing Sumption letter to press

Dinah Rose mentioned CPR 31.22 when the court reconvened-Had Mr Rozenberg left the building at that stage? Lord Neuberger responded as follows: "So are you saying that my draft judgment is a public document? It was also mentioned in court this morning" Noone emerges with credit. Indeed it is astonishing that experienced leading counsel have conducted themselves in this way-eg Jonathan Sumption QC's misleading 'cc' and an obvious attempt to have a private dialogue with the judge -A BCC pupil wouldn't last long if they attempted to use that tactic. As the 6 February 2010 letter refers to the draft judgment , it should have been obvious to leading counsel that it could not be disclosed at that stage. The authorities are clear on this point: "It is apparent that very good reasons are required for departing from the normal rule of publicity. In the present case such good reasons have, in my view, been shown. The documents in issue are closely related to the very subject matter which the Claimant is seeking to protect by means of this action for breach of confidence. In my judgment, and for the reasons I have given, the Claimant has established at this stage at least an arguable case that they contain private confidential information of a sensitive nature. " HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 11 §15 Lord Judge agreed with Ms Rose that advocates can take stands "if justified" but did not seem to agree with her view that it was justified on Wednesday morning.

12-Feb-2010

2:44 pm