Conway v Rimmer, [1968] AC 910
Citation:Conway v Rimmer, [1968] AC 910
Rule of thumb: .
Background facts:
The facts of this case were that Conway was a Police Officer. He was dismissed from the force and accused of theft. He was subsequently acquitted. He raised an action for malicious prosecution. As a former police officer he understood the system. He asked for specific documents relating to conversations he knew would have taken place between senior figures in the Police about how he was to be investigated/put under surveillance.
Judgment:
The Court held that Conway was entitled to all the documents except those that could show the theory behind investigation techniques. The Court held in particular that whole classes of document should not be withheld and they should be provided in redacted form – the Court held it would be rare that a whole document would be deemed classified and nothing from it could be provided.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘But here we are dealing purely with public policy – with the proper relation between the powers of the executive and the powers of the courts – and I can see no rational justification for the law on this matter being different in the two...’
‘I would therefore propose that the House ought now to decide that courts have and are entitled to exercise a power and duty to hold a balance between the public interest, as expressed by a Minister, to withhold certain documents or other evidence, and the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice. That does not mean that a court would reject a Minister’s view: full weight must be given to it in every case, and if the Minister’s reasons are of a character which judicial experience is not competent to weigh, then the Minister’s view must prevail. But experience has shown that reasons given for withholding whole classes of documents are often not of that character. For example a court is perfectly well able to assess the likelihood that, if the writer of a certain class of document knew that there was a chance that his report might be produced in legal proceedings, he would make a less full and candid report than he would otherwise have done. I do not doubt that there are certain classes of documents which ought not to be disclosed whatever their content may be. Virtually everyone agrees that Cabinet minutes and the like ought not to be disclosed until such time as they are only of historical interest. But I do not think that many people would give as the reason that premature disclosure would prevent candour in the Cabinet. To my mind the most important reason is that such disclosure would create or fan ill-informed or captious public or political criticism.’
At page 10, ‘The police are carrying on an unending war with criminals many of whom are to-day highly intelligent. So it is essential that there should be no disclosure of anything which might give any useful information to those who organise criminal activities. And it would generally be wrong to require disclosure in a civil case of anything which might be material in a pending prosecution: but after a verdict has been given or it has been decided to take no proceedings there is not the same need for secrecy. With regard to other documents there seems to be no greater need for protection than in the case of departments of Government. It appears to me to be most improbable that any harm would be done by disclosure of the probationary reports on the Appellant or of the report from the Police Training Centre. With regard to the report which the Respondent made to his Chief Constable with a view to the prosecution of the Appellant there could be more doubt, although no suggestion was made in argument that disclosure of its contents would be harmful now that the Appellant has been acquitted. And, as I have said, these documents may prove to be of vital importance in this litigation. In my judgment this appeal should be allowed and these documents ought now to be required to be produced for inspection. If it is then found that disclosure would not, in your Lordships' view, be prejudicial to the public interest, or that any possibility of such prejudice is, in the case of each of the documents, insufficient to justify its being withheld, then disclosure should be ordered’. At page 12 Lord Reid
‘But experience has shown that reasons given for withholding whole classes of documents are often not of that character’, Lord Reid
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.