The ‘Open’ Court

  • Daniel Marshall
  • Terry Thomas


The criminal court is usually an ‘open’ area where justice can be seen to be done. The concept of privacy is sometimes used to help people in courts when they have appeared as defendants or witnesses. Defendants in the Youth Court are entitled to automatic privacy with only the more serious cases leading to a lifting of reporting restrictions. The intimidated or vulnerable witness is allowed ‘special measures’ to protect them from the worst rigours of the criminal court. The courts are expected to be open and fair and any privacy protection must consider that whether it be ‘witness anonymity’, ‘witness protection’ or, as in the specific case of the withholding of a complainant’s previous sexual history in a rape case.


  1. BBC News (1998) Young Offenders to Be ‘Named and Shamed’, 11 June (available at accessed 14 February 2017).
  2. BBC News (2013b) Ched Evans Rape Case: Tenth Person Fined for Naming Victim, 21 January (available at accessed 1 February 2017).
  3. Brooke C and Martin A (2010) Name the Devil Boys – We Must Not Let Them Hide. Daily Mail, 23 January.Google Scholar
  4. BSB (Bar Standards Board) (2015) Handbook (2nd ed.), London.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell D and Norton-Taylor R (2014) Murder in Hampstead: The Author, the Dissident and a Trial Held in Secret. The Guardian, 23 January.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell D, Norton-Taylor R and Bowcott O (2014) Trial of AB and CD Part of Creeping Move Towards Secret Justice. The Guardian, 12 June.Google Scholar
  7. CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) (2016) Commission Refers the Murder Conviction of Wang Yam to the Court of Appeal (Press Release) 28 April.Google Scholar
  8. Clarkson M and Thomas T (1995) Press Reports of Young Offenders Under s49. Childright, 113 Jan/Feb: 5–6.Google Scholar
  9. Cobain I (2016) Erol Incedal Trial: Media Groups Lose Appeal over Reporting Restrictions. The Guardian, 9 February.Google Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union (2016) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Procedural Safeguards for Children Suspected or Accused in Criminal Proceedings Brussels, 16 March 2016 PE-CONS 2/16. Google Scholar
  11. CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) (2009) The Director’s Guidance on Witness Anonymity, December (available at accessed 1 February 2017).
  12. Durham R, Lawson R, Lord A and Baird V (2017) Seeing Is Believing – The Northumbria Court Observers Panel. Report on 30 Rape Trials 2015–16, Newcastle: Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioners Office.Google Scholar
  13. Franklin B and Petley J (1996) Killing the Age of Innocence: Newspaper Reporting of the Death of James Bulger, in Pilcher and Wagg.Google Scholar
  14. HMG (HM Government) (2010a) The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, May, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  15. Home Office (1998) Speaking Up for Justice: Report of an Interdepartmental Working Group on the treatment of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses in the Criminal Justice System, June, London.Google Scholar
  16. Home Office (2002) Breaking the Circle: A Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, July, London: TSO.Google Scholar
  17. Home Office (2006c) Electronic Monitoring on Bail for Adults: Procedures (Circular No. 25/2006), London.Google Scholar
  18. Home Office (2015g) Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of Anti-Social Behaviour Powers – Statutory Guidance for Frontline Professionals, July, London.Google Scholar
  19. Home Office (2016d) Guidance on Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, November, London: Public Protection Unit.Google Scholar
  20. Kane P (1988) The Murderer Age 12. Daily Mirror, 26 October.Google Scholar
  21. Laville S (2016) The Ched Evans Trial Showed How Rape Complainants Are Still Put in the Dock. The Guardian, 14 October.Google Scholar
  22. Logan W (2009) Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mair G and Nee C (1990) Electronic Monitoring: The Trials and Their Results, Home Office Research Study 120, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  24. Mason R (2016) Female Labour MPs Call for Legal Change Following Ched Evans Re-trial. The Guardian, 23 October.Google Scholar
  25. MoJ (Ministry of Justice) (2010) Providing Anonymity for Those Accused of Rape: An Assessment of Evidence, Research Series 20/10 November, London.Google Scholar
  26. MoJ (Ministry of Justice) (2016a) Process Evaluation of Pre-recorded Cross Examination Pilot (Section 28), London: Ministry of Justice Analytical Services.Google Scholar
  27. MoJ (Ministry of Justice) (2016b) Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales (Taylor Report), Cm 9298, December, London.Google Scholar
  28. MoJ (Ministry of Justice) (2017) Greater Protection for Rape Victims and Children at Risk of Grooming (Press Release) 19 March (available at accessed 19 March 2017).
  29. NCA (National Crime Agency) (2015) Introduction to Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), April (available at accessed 14 February 2017).
  30. NCA (National Crime Agency) (2017) UK Protected Persons Service (available at accessed 12 March 2017).
  31. NPCC (National Police Chief’s Council) (2013) A UK Wide Witness Protection Scheme Has Been Launched (Press Release) October 7.Google Scholar
  32. Pilkington E (1993) Boys Guilty of Bulger Murder – Detention Without Limit for ‘Unparalleled Evil’. The Guardian, 25 November.Google Scholar
  33. Pithers M (1992) Five Years’ Custody for Girl, 12, Who Killed Baby. The Guardian, 30 April.Google Scholar
  34. Plotnikoff J and Woolfson R (2009) Measuring Up? Evaluating Implementation of Government commitments to Young Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings, The Nuffield, London: Foundation/NSPCC.Google Scholar
  35. SCYJ (Standing Committee on Youth Justice) (2015) SCYJ Guide to the New Anti-Social Behaviour Powers, February, London.Google Scholar
  36. SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) (2016) Handbook (Version 18), 1 November, London.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor S (2015) Investigation into Links Between Special Demonstration Squad and Home Office, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  38. UN (United Nations) (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  39. UNCRC (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child) (2008) ‘Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, Forty-Ninth Session Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention 20 October (Ref. CRC/C/GBR/CO/4).Google Scholar
  40. Wainwright M (2009) Brothers Back in Court over Quarry Attack. The Guardian, 15 April.Google Scholar
  41. Wolff S and McCall Smith A (2000) Child Homicide and the Law: Implications of the Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of the Children Who Killed James Bulger. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 5(3): 133–138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Marshall
    • 1
  • Terry Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.School of LawLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesLeeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations