Home > People's rights > Freedom of Information > Practitioners > Full exemptions guidance > Section 31 > Chapter 3

FOI full exemptions guidance

sections:
Intro | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 |

Section 31- Law Enforcement

Chapters: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

Chapter 03: Section 31(1)(c) - the administration of justice

3.1 Application of the exemption

Under this subsection, information is exempt if its disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice. There is no definition of "administration of justice" but it may be construed widely. Bear in mind:

the exemption is not just about the courts - justice is administered through courts and tribunals, through arbitrators, and through alternatives to litigation;
justice is commonly classified by subject matter - for example criminal, civil, family, or administrative.. All categories are covered, as are matters which may not fit that classification or which are general in nature;
justice may be administered by professional judges and adjudicators, or by lay magistrates or panel members, or by jurors;
administration of justice need not imply an adversarial context - it includes non-contentious or uncontested business, and inquisitorial processes (such as inquiries and coroners' courts);
ensuring people's access to justice is part of the administration of justice;
the administration of justice may be prejudiced in an individual case, or by something happening to the general process by which justice is delivered.

In view of the potential breadth of section 31(1)(c) it is important to consider whether the information might be covered by a more specific exemption. There are separate exemptions in section 30 and section 32 which cover investigations and proceedings by public authorities and information held in court records. Information relating to the prevention and detection of crime, apprehension and prosecution of offenders, and maintenance of good order and security in prisons is covered by other limbs of section 31.

Here are some aspects of the administration of justice that could be prejudiced by the disclosure of information:

the operation of the judicial appointments system;
the ability of a judge to deliver justice effectively, fairly and fearlessly in a particular case;
the ability of a judge, or of the judiciary, to perform this function more generally;
the business of running of the courts and tribunals (though other exemptions might also be relevant);
the enforcement of sentences and the execution of judgements;
the ability of litigants to bring their cases, or a particular case, to court;
the prospects of a fair trial taking place;
the effectiveness of relationships between different agencies involved in the administration of justice (for example premature disclosure of plans to redistribute functions between different agencies could lead to a breakdown of co-operation);
a range of other matters and systems that support the administration of justice (e.g. the operation of the legal aid system, or IT systems - disclosure of the security systems on computer systems would facilitate unauthorised access and thereby make them vulnerable to interference);
the maintenance of an independent and effective legal profession.

3.2 The Public Interest Test

The public interest in the administration of justice is very high. It is moreover a public interest which is explicitly recognised by the courts as fundamental to their work and as permeating their approach to the common law and to statutory interpretation. Not only, therefore, is this a public interest which the courts will expect government to respect highly, it is a public interest which the courts will expect government to acknowledge to be the courts' particular domain, a matter on which the courts themselves are ultimately the constitutional arbiters within the law.

Although, therefore, in common with other prejudice-based exemptions, the nature, degree and likelihood of prejudice to the administration of justice will be an essential part of weighing the balance of public interest for and against disclosure, the respect owed by government departments to the proper administration of justice indicates a need for special care in concluding that the public interest in avoiding prejudice is outweighed. Circumstances where prejudice in a particular case is outweighed by the prevention of prejudice more generally will be one example where the balance might come down in favour of disclosure. For example it may be necessary to disclose information relevant to the safety of individuals even if this causes the collapse of a case before the courts. There may be other circumstances, particularly at the administrative margins rather than the judicial centre of the system of the administration of justice, where the operational impact of a prejudicial disclosure is more diffuse, and considerations of administrative transparency weigh more strongly. Precisely because prejudice to the administration of justice comprehends such a wide range of circumstances, the specific factors relevant to individual cases may be particularly important to the operation of this exemption.

3.3 Potential overlap with other exemptions

The constitutional significance of the administration of justice is reflected in its being protected in a large number of specific ways, for example through provisions on:

contempt of court and the right to a fair trial (see section 44),
legal professional privilege (section 42),
court records (section 32).

And specific, sectoral issues relating to the administration of justice are of course covered throughout section 31 itself.