“A restricted case for the closed materials process: pure justice, open justice and the clear benefit variation“
Edward Lui
Authorized Research
Revealed on-line: October 2024
Summary: The closed materials process (CMP) – ever since its introduction to English legislation – has been subjected to a really important quantity of educational criticism. However over time, the CMP has grow to be more and more settled as a fixture in English legislation. While the existence of the CMP per se in English legislation appears settled, the extent of its deployment will not be. Given this growth, it appears essential and constructive to look at whether or not – and the circumstances beneath which – a CMP can ever be normatively justified, all issues thought-about. Two propositions might be made. First, a standard argument for the CMP – the maximising argument – doesn’t display that the CMP is normatively justified, all issues thought-about, for it doesn’t sufficiently mitigate the 2 most important objections to the CMP, based mostly respectively on the rules of pure justice and open justice. Secondly, the place the clear benefit variation is deployed – ie when a CMP permits the excluded celebration to make use of fabric that: (a) clearly benefits him; and (b) would in any other case be unavailable for the court docket’s consideration – each objections are sufficiently mitigated. In such a case, the CMP is normatively justified, all issues thought-about. This constitutes a restricted normative case for the CMP.
