Scott v Scott
Justice must be administered in public, and the court can sit in private only where this is strictly necessary to achieve justice.
Facts
Mrs Scott brought proceedings to annul her marriage. The case was heard in private. Afterwards, she sent copies of the transcript of the proceedings to her husband's father and sister, to defend her reputation. The court held her in contempt of court for publishing the transcript of proceedings heard in private.
Legal principle
The House of Lords set aside the finding of contempt. Open justice is a fundamental principle of English law, and the courts have no general power to sit in private merely because a case involves embarrassing or sensitive matters. Exceptions are allowed only where hearing the case in public would defeat the object of the proceedings, such as cases involving wards of court, lunatics or secret processes, where publicity would destroy the subject matter. Lord Shaw quoted Jeremy Bentham's statement that publicity is the very soul of justice, and that it keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial.
Related cases on judiciary, legal profession and access to justice
- Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305
- Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615
- Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38, [2020] AC 629
- Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62, [2008] 1 WLR 2416
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35, [2004] 1 All ER 187
- Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451
- Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27, [2003] 1 AC 120
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
