24 comments/updates on “Cambridge Magistrates Court Lists Obtained via Freedom of Information Request”

1. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 22, 2013 at 3:23 am

   I have made further FOI requests:

   • Register of Decisions – Cambridge Magistrates Courts – 21 January 2013
   • Cambridge Magistrates Court List Information – Week Commencing 25 Feb 2013

   Reply ↓
2. william perrin January 22, 2013 at 10:25 am

   great stuff – you are not alone in this as you probably know – see link above.

   [Edit by Richard - The link is:

   http://talkaboutlocal.org.uk/justice-wide-open-the-collision-between-uncodified-open-justice-and-the-law-of-data-protection-and-copyright-oj_city/

   ]

   The mags courts situation is extremely frustrating, not least because policy makers are not engaging in a debate that has to balance up a set of competing interests:

   common law conventions of open access to courts
   rehabilitation of offenders and spent convictions and the alleged/y permanency of internet records
   data protection
   inaccuracy of lists (cases drop before they get to court and others come on that aren’t on list)
   blacklisting
   the modern world
   machine readability of the list documents
   closure of mags courts leading to remoteness of justice
   etc

   wigan world used to publish actual results, which was great until a clerk clamped down on the distribution

   drop me a line if you fancy a chat about this

   Reply ↓
3. Colin January 22, 2013 at 1:39 pm

   The court lists contain a defendant’s full name, full address, date of birth, and sometimes car registration or other personal information, even if they are found not guilty. Is this the sort of thing that should routinely be published online?

   There is a significant difference between having to be physically present at the court to learn this, and allowing anyone (friends, enemies, potential employers, identity thieves), anywhere, at any time, to immediately access this information. I think rather more editing/censoring is needed before these lists are regularly published.

   In any case, it seems to me that the sort of transparency you seek, such as determining if new policies are effective, or reviewing if sentencing is fair, is not really informed by the publishing of court lists which (seem to) contain no judgment or sentencing information.

   Reply ↓
4. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 22, 2013 at 3:46 pm

   Colin,

   It’s important to identify people precisely, with names, dates of birth (or ages) and addresses to avoid defaming people who might otherwise be mistaken for the individual in question. The court lists do give a little more information than the press typically publish when they do cover a court listing, such as a house number or vehicle registration.

   I think we need to have justice seen to be done in public, and that includes publishing the identities of people who are due to appear in court along with what they are charged with. No one should assume because someone is due to appear before a court they are guilty, or think any less of them.

   I agree there’s a difference between being present in court and information which is published. A very large amount of material presented in court (as with the court lists) is subject to reporting restrictions and therefore illegal to publish.

   In any case, it seems to me that the sort of transparency you seek, such as determining if new policies are effective, or reviewing if sentencing is fair, is not really informed by the publishing of court lists which (seem to) contain no judgment or sentencing information.

   There are two FOI requests linked above for court registers, which will include “judgements” (decisions taken by magistrates – I don’t think reasons are routinely recorded but may be given in court) and sentencing information.

   The information in the court lists enables people to go to the court in person and observe cases of interest. Regular publication could for example allow those using the River Cam to observe how the Conservators enforce their by-laws via the court, allow cycling campaigners to see how the courts deal with offences committed by, or where the victims are, cyclists. The list alone doesn’t provide transparency needed, but it helps.

   There are many interesting questions raised; particularly there are questions about how long it is reasonable to publish information for – the concept of a newspaper printing something on one day only has been overtaken by technology. I’ve previously written:

   I think it is inevitable with more information becoming available online, not least through the press, that it will become easier to find our about someone’s criminality in the past. I think our society’s views on rehabilitation need to change, in order to tackle crime and reduce the number of criminals we need to accept people can reform and allow reformed criminals to lead full and productive lives.

   Reply ↓
5. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 23, 2013 at 3:00 pm

   I have been asked why the court lists name victims.

   To illustrate here is a redacted example charge from the list released:

   Assault by beating
   On [Date] at Cambridge in the County of Cambridgeshire assaulted [Name] by beating [him/her]. Contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

   Names are given in such and similar cases; also details are given of locations of burglaries / thefts mentioned in charges.

   Reply ↓
6. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm

   Judith Townend has written an article commenting on the release of these court lists:

   http://meejalaw.com/2013/01/23/digitally-published-magistrates-court-lists-how-should-it-be-done/

   Reply ↓
7. jtownend January 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm

   Fascinating post and thank you for elaborating here, and on Twitter.

   A key issue, then, is the potential online publication of ‘full lists’ rather than the noticeboard list: who currently has access to them and how is dissemination of sensitive details prevented; if these were to be officially released online, in a publicly accessible format, how should they be redacted?

   Reply ↓
   1. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 23, 2013 at 5:48 pm

      I don’t think even the “notice board” lists from magistrates courts are available online yet; really that’s only designed for people turning up at court to find out where and when their case is to be heard. All that’s given is the defendant(s) name, the prosecuting/informing authority (usually a part of the police or a council) and the court, time, and a reference number. That list isn’t really any good for finding out about a particular cases of interest unless you already know the defendant’s name.

      Currently I think many people get the full court lists via arrangements which make them subject to contracts or protocols (information on such a protocol). Those obtaining a list via a FOI response are not subject to such contracts; however they are of course subject to the laws on reporting.

      My previous FOI requests for listing details of particular cases have been rejected (there are examples linked in the above article) and another example was my request for “Court Appearance Details – Handlers of Cambridge’s Stolen Bikes”. This is contrary to the direction I think was being given by Jack Straw as Justice Minister who I think was saying via the above linked protocol that information ought be supplied in relation to more specific requests, perhaps in preference to the release in bulk of large amounts of material which would probably not be of much interest. (eg. huge lists of those who’re facing action relating to not paying a council tax bill on time).

      I think as a general principle public sector information ought be created with a view to disclosure so any sensitive and personal information which is exempt from disclosure to the public ought be kept separate from the start. We need to change the way records are kept, rather than creating work redacting material on release.

      I would like court lists released following whatever redaction is required such that they can legally be published.

      There’s still a question of what the law ought to be. The only material I personally would want redacted from the court lists I received would be the victim’s names. Even then I think there shouldn’t be a blanket removal of such names; certainly children’s names ought be removed, and perhaps those who are victims of domestic violence – but if I was assaulted in public by a stranger I’d be happy with my name being released in the court list. There were no child defendants in the lists I obtained, but if there had been any (they appear in adult court when charged alongside adults) their names ought to have been released.

      As for the question of how long material ought be kept, either online in raw form, or in articles, my view is it should not be removed.
8. Chris January 24, 2013 at 11:57 pm

   Any idea how Chris Huhne gets to have his days in court with a complete media blackout?

   Reply ↓
   1. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 25, 2013 at 4:44 am

      The Wikipedia article on the case states:

      Due to the existence of an order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the media is currently banned from reporting on the trial.

      I suppose one could make a FOI request for a copy of that order; then consideration could be given as to if this, or the previous comment, breach it.
   2. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 25, 2013 at 5:30 am

      The relevant section of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is probably section 4(2) which states:

      the court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose.

      Presumably there must be an actual order which tells us at least what that delay period is.
9. Chris January 25, 2013 at 8:57 am

   Difficult to see how I could comply with an order I don’t actually know about. I do think that whatever the circumstances of the case, the fact that ‘normal’ people’s court cases can be well publicised but a senior politician can have a potentially damaging court case held in complete secret doesn’t do anything to enhance the view that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

   Reply ↓
10. Richard Taylor Article authorJanuary 27, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    Today’s Sunday Times reports Home Affairs Select Committee Chairman Keith Vaz as promising an inquiry into the police dealing with criminals other than by taking them to court.

    One of the concerns raised in the accompanying articles is that sanctions handed down by the police, for example in relation to cautions, restorative justice disposals, or other out of court options are dealt with “behind closed doors”.

    If our courts are not effectively operating in an open, transparent and public manner then the difference between the out of court and in-court due process is not as stark as it ought to be, which perhaps explains how the out of court option has crept up to being so popular and perhaps why those police officers involved have not seen the increase in out of court penalties as wrong.

    I think there are also problems with the fact our court process is often, as shown by some of the cases in the lists mentioned in the above article, very slow.

    If our courts were more functional – if they were speedier and more public – then I don’t think we would see the police trying to take on a greater role in sanctioning criminals out of court. I suspect as so often what we’re seeing to a degree is the police responding and trying to pick up the pieces where other elements of the public sector are failing. It would be good to see some senior justices’ clerks and others responsible for the administration of the magistrates courts contributing to the inquiry.

    We’re also seeing magistrates courts become more remote, following closures and courts handling cases from wider areas – this too might make opting for an out of court sanction appear more attractive and more proportionate to a police officer working in location without a local court.

    Reply ↓
11. Richard Taylor Article authorFebruary 2, 2013 at 1:01 am

    WhatDoTheyKnow has been in touch with the Courts Service / Ministry of Justice in relation to this request and has passed the following exchange to me in my capacity as the requester in this case:

    (1) Did you intend to release all of the information that was released
    to the requester? (sometimes authorities make failed attempts to
    redact information or send the wrong attachment).

    1) The information was released in error

    (2) Please can you confirm that you would release a full copy of the
    court list to anyone who requested it and that it is available for
    inspection by the general public

    2) We would not release a full copy of a “court list” to anyone who
    requested it. The documents released are not available for inspection
    by the general public. However, we do have “‘Public Lists” that are
    displayed in court buildings and which contain information about each
    day’s hearings. The “Public Lists” contain the following information:

    Court name and address,
    Surnames, forenames and titles of defendants,
    the ‘informant’ – by which we meant the name of the person or
    organisation that has brought the case to court, e.g. Department for
    Work and Pensions, Superintendent [surname].
    Room number (e.g. Court 1)
    Time (of hearing)
    Case number

    By comparison, “Court Lists” includes information regarding a
    defendant’s address, date of birth and age. Other information will
    depend on the nature and events in a case, e.g. make, model and
    registration numbers of vehicles, the names of alleged victims for
    offences against the person, a defendant’s plea, and information
    regarding hearings. “Court Lists” contain information that is used
    by, for example, magistrates hearing the cases.

    (3) We would like to publish part of the information received in
    response to this request on our site – please could you explain what
    specific legal restrictions there are on republishing court lists. We
    are aware of the general requirements set out in the Data Protection
    Act and of the definition of sensitive personal data.

    Irrespective of any legal restrictions that might apply we would act
    responsibly and for that reason I think it highly unlikely that we
    would want to publish all of the information released.

    3) We believe the majority of the information in the Court Lists is
    exempt from disclosure under Section 32 (Court Records) and Section 40
    (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act. We also
    believe provision and publication of sensitive personal data may also
    breach The Data Protection Act. There are also issues around ensuring
    the appropriate retention and disposal of information. Finally there
    may be some information whose release is prohibited by statute or
    where a judge or magistrate will have imposed a reporting restriction.

    [There was no 4th question - but there was a 4th response]

    4) The Public lists are only made available to the public for short
    periods of time before the hearing is due and greater details are
    provided to members of the media under an agreed protocol or through a
    licence to ensure appropriate handling of information

    [name of public official]
    Operational Support Officer, SE Regional Support Unit

    Please note: I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice
    contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which
    may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means

    I think there are a number of elements of this response which are not accurate, or contrary to my experience.

    When I have attended court the full lists have been made available to those asking for them. Where they’ve not been forthcoming the reason given has been has been they need all the copies they’ve got in order to run the court.

    When full lists are provided to the media in court they are not made available under any protocol/license/contract – provision of the list in court is quite different to obtaining lists via the routes/services which do involve entering contracts and agreeing to comply with guidelines etc.

    I understand WhatDoTheyKnow will be seeking a replacement response so that the request can be republished – in line with their usual practice in such cases.

    Reply ↓
12. Chris February 2, 2013 at 1:12 am

    There shouldn’t be a separate class of disclosure for special friends in the media – either the information is publicly available – in which case it should be fully published online to everyone, or it shouldn’t be available at all…

    Reply ↓
13. Richard Taylor Article authorFebruary 3, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    In December I used the public speaking slot at the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership urging them to consider that open court lists could help the courts, council, probation and other bodies work together better as well as inform the public. The response I got at the time was that they would think about my suggestion. I’ve now seen the “action points” which are to be reported to the February 2013 meeting include:

    12/03
    Chair to write to the Magistracy asking if the court lists can be made public
    Chair wrote to the Magistracy in January and is awaiting a reply

    (Source: February CSP meeting papers – page 11)

    This is excellent; the Community Safety Partnership appears to be on-side in calling for Cambridge’s Court Lists to be made public, and the Partnership includes Cambridge’s local councils, the police, the probation service, local voluntary bodies and even the magistrates!

    It is notable that the partnership has written to the magistrates, and not the courts service. Perhaps they are hoping for the magistrates locally to take direct action?

    Reply ↓
14. Jon Baines February 7, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    Hi Richard, as long promised, I’ve blogged on this at http://informationrightsandwrongs.com/2013/02/07/courts-contempt-and-data-protection/ although I need to return to the subject, as this is only a preliminary post.

    Reply ↓
15. Richard Taylor Article authorFebruary 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Will Perrin, a member of the Government’s Crime and Justice Transparency Sector Panel, has tweeted to he’s written to them to bring this case to their attention.

    @bainesy1969 @jtownend @paul_clarke missed last panel but emailed them to bring cambs case to attention

    — William Perrin (@willperrin) February 7, 2013

    Reply ↓
16. Richard Taylor Article authorFebruary 16, 2013 at 8:32 pm

    I see in Northern Ireland the “noticeboard” lists for Magistrates Courts are available online:

    https://onlineservices.courtsni.gov.uk/publiccourtlists/

    Interestingly while the names of most youths are replaced by the word “Youth” some names of those listed to appear in youth court are given.

    It isn’t easily possible to directly link to court lists; which appears to have stopped them appearing in search engines.

    Reply ↓
17. Richard Taylor Article authorFebruary 25, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    In relation to both the request I made for the court’s register of decisions (for a given day) and my latest request for a Cambridge Magistrate’s Court Lists I have received the following message:

    On this occasion your requests for information are not being handled under the Freedom of
    Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The information you have asked for is subject to the Criminal
    Procedural Rules (CPR) and so the court will consider what information can be disclosed to you
    under the CPR (rather than the FOIA).

    I appreciate you may not have known that your request was being handled outside of the Freedom
    of Information Act regime. Please accept my apologies.

    I note you have asked for an internal review (writing on 20 February 2013 at 23:28). Since your
    enquiries are being handled outside of the Freedom of Information Act, the Internal Review
    process does not apply in this instance.

    The court is considering your request and you will receive a response in due course.

    In my view this is not a clear response.

    If my request is considered a valid FOI request then the Freedom of Information Act requires a public body to respond. If they wish to refuse my request they need to give grounds citing one of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act.

    If they are refusing my FOI request then I have not been told what exemptions in the FOI act they are relying upon to withhold the information I have requested.

    I can’t see myself getting any further with the courts so think I ought appeal to the information commissioner.

    Reply ↓
    1. Richard Taylor Article authorFebruary 26, 2013 at 3:24 am

       I have now appealed to the commissioner as I have noted on the request thread.
18. Richard Taylor Article authorFebruary 26, 2013 at 3:10 am

    Part five section 8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules appears highly relevant.

    It requires a court officer to provide the following information on request:

    • (a) the date of any hearing in public, unless any party has yet to be notified of that date;
    • (b) each alleged offence and any plea entered;
    • (c) the court’s decision at any hearing in public, including any decision about—
      • (i) bail, or
      • (ii) the committal, sending or transfer of the case to another court;
    • (d) whether the case is under appeal;
    • (e) the outcome of any trial and any appeal; and
    • (f) the identity of—
      • (i) the prosecutor,
      • (ii) the defendant,
      • (iii) the parties’ representatives, including their addresses, and
      • (iv) the judge, magistrate or magistrates, or justices’ legal adviser by whom a decision at a hearing in public was made.

    The Criminal Procedure Rules are part of the law; legislation.gov.uk link to Part 5 Section 8.

    There’s nothing about timeliness of a response to a request, nor details of any potential charges for accessing the information.

    Reply ↓
19. Richard Taylor Article authorMarch 13, 2013 at 12:30 am

    Labour MP for Exeter Ben Bradshaw has written a tweet revealing that he was under the impression that offences (at least driving offences) were “a matter of public record”.

    @hammerfeather @julianhuppert @gnomeicide any conviction for driving offence matter of public record points doubt it but will find out

    — Ben Bradshaw (@BenPBradshaw) March 12, 2013

    As Mr Bradshaw appeared to think that our magistrates courts routinely proactively publish their decisions I tweeted back to him to note that they are not; and it is only if someone happens to find out about a case and observe the court that what happens generally gets out:

    MT @benpbradshaw: conviction for driving offence matter of public record < Cld be reported if s’one observed ct. Not proactively published

    — Richard Taylor (@RTaylorUK) March 12, 2013

    Mr Bradshaw responded:

    @rtayloruk court lists are published, no?

    — Ben Bradshaw (@BenPBradshaw) March 12, 2013

    I explained they really aren’t; pointing to this article and my attempt to get the court register for just one day in Cambridge Magistrate’s Court released.

    Reply ↓
20. Richard Taylor Article authorApril 28, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    I have submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The latest position taken by Cambridge Magistrates is that a request for a particular day’s court list does not adequately describe the information being sought.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cambridge_magistrates_court_list_2#comment-37689

    Reply ↓