ECHR: Open Justice Campaign

Dr M. Pelling v UK (35974/97)
Bayram v UK (36337/97)

The Open Justice Campaign has been fighting for open justice since 1995. We challenge the practice of having secret hearings (without any public or press) in cases about children.

We oppose a justice system where judges and so-called experts operate in closed courts.
We believe that it is unacceptable in a democratic society, that the system of justice should maintain a class of people who, whilst paid out of public funds, are deemed to be outside the scrutiny of the electorate.

Unless there is public scrutiny in the courts, the quality of justice inevitably suffers. As BENTHAM, the 19th century philosopher, said:

"In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial."

Public scrutiny is the only way a system of justice can be accountable to the electorate. Secret or censored court hearings destroy accountability as well as the trust that the public has in the system. Without independent witnesses, miscarriages of justice will be hidden. It is absurd that a system which is supposed to preserve our human rights should:

Ban the public.
Prevent scrutiny of how a judge does his job.
Prevent the press from reporting.
Prevent cross examination of so-called expert witnesses.
Ban independent people sitting on the benches reserved for the public to see alleged experts giving evidence.
Depend merely on the goodwill of one judge.

The fundamental question is this: Should lawyers and judges be permitted to practice a legal system under a monopolistic prohibition of public scrutiny?

Second issue: The Right to Act in Person

Dr Pelling is defending the ENGLISH COMMON LAW principle that "you may represent yourself when you are forced to conduct a case in a court of law".

The English Common Law, since time immemorial, upheld a citizen's right to act as a "litigant in person" (LIP). Dr Pelling is a man who upholds this right. He has featured in many ground breaking cases which have produced case law. As as a Litigant in Person (LIP) he has extensive experience in addressing courts, including the Court of Appeal and the High Court (Judicial Reviews) without ever relying on lawyers. By himself he has fought his complaint about Secret Court practices in the English Legal system, and he prepared all papers and further submissions to the ECHR by HIMSELF and without any assistance from the legal profession.

This important RIGHT UNDER ENGLISH COMMON LAW is under threat at the ECHR which may BAN Dr Pelling from addressing the court on the 14th November 2000. Ironically although the ECHR is obliged by Article 6(1) to uphold the right to a fair hearing in all the States which subscribe to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Court is not itself prepared to give a Litigant in Person like Dr. Pelling a fair hearing. Although the President, Mr J-P. Costa, has refused leave to Dr Pelling to represent himself at the hearing, the whole court has yet to address the justice of allowing the UK Government with its advisors, agents and counsel to address the court, while denying the applicant Englishman the same right.