The link is to a story about how the government are moving towards publishing anonymised judgments. This is a step forwards that I have been pressing for for some time.
It is important that we can discuss publicly the merits of state intervention in particular cases. We do not need to know publicly who the people involved are. We do, however, need to have some idea of the basis of the case.
This should also include, however, access to the detailed reports being used. Too many judgments simply refer to reports that are frankly rubbish.
Some progress, however, is being made.
There do, however, have to be exhaustive productions of anonymised judgments and the full logical reasoning needs to be open to challenge. This is where the system falls down badly.
It is important that we can discuss publicly the merits of state intervention in particular cases. We do not need to know publicly who the people involved are. We do, however, need to have some idea of the basis of the case.
This should also include, however, access to the detailed reports being used. Too many judgments simply refer to reports that are frankly rubbish.
Some progress, however, is being made.
There do, however, have to be exhaustive productions of anonymised judgments and the full logical reasoning needs to be open to challenge. This is where the system falls down badly.
Comments