The Ministry of Justice was forced to intervene after a court refused to give a judge’s name to a weekly newspaper reporter.
Surrey Comet journalist Rachael Burford was covering a case at Kingston County Court but when she attempted to obtain the name of the judge from the court manager, she was told it was “against data protection.”
Despite protests from Rachael and a call from Comet assistant editor Ross Logan, pictured left, the official refused to budge.
However the decision was later overturned after a call to the Ministry of Justice and the judge was finally identified as Sarah King.
She is not believed to have been aware of the attempt to withhold her name during Tuesday’s hearing.
Said Ross: “It is not unusual to have some issue or another with a court we don’t frequent regularly, like a youth court or a county court. But it is usually sorted out with a call to the court manager.
“In this case, although the court manager was very polite, it was worrying that they did not understand the law or the need for open justice.”
He added: “In the end it was sorted out, which we are grateful for, and we hope this helps county courts understand that they apply the law on behalf of the public and are as privy to open justice as any other court.”
It the latest in a series of examples of undue secrecy by court officials which have also included coroners refusing to name dead people and the erroneous application of Section 39 Orders.
The case itself saw a £100,000 claimed dismissed after a former Unilever personal assistant tried to sue the company, which has headquarters a stone’s throw from the court, for “incessant bullying”.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
I’d be interested to know if they had continued to withhold the name if, legally, there is a law or regulation that would force them to name the judge – or if it’s down to goodwill and convention.
Report this comment
Sounds like ignorance. In the days when my JP paper covered court regularly I often had problems with CPS prosecutors checking name spellings etc. Some were great, others downright obstructive. Generally I found the crown court officials better trained to deal with press than lower courts. Not seeing reporters regularly does not help. I used to know most of the officials, which helped a lot.well done this paper.
Report this comment
Someone in authority needs to have a very frank word with the court official responsible for this ridiculous situation. If they don’t understand (or refuse to understand) such a basic part of their job then perhaps they should be invited to seek employment elsewhere.
Report this comment
The magic words “data protection” has become a readymade excuse for lazy public officials to hide behind if they simply can’t be bothered to go and look or ask for an answer to a simple query.
Report this comment
We can expect to see a lot more of this, now that dwindling resources mean fewer journalists in court. I remember encountering difficulties years ago whenever we pitched up at either county or family courts. The officials simply weren’t used to seeing journalists at all, and just didn’t know whether we were allowed in or not. These things can always be sorted out in the end – this one was clearly an aberration – but it’s something trainee journalists will need to be prepared for.
Report this comment
Aren’t all judges names on the court lists, that are now available online?
Report this comment
The nadir of data protection for me was when I knew the name of a Greek psychologist from an Inquest but her colleague wouldn’t spell it for me.
Report this comment
Getting to know courts well helps a lot. Not a lot of that around now, especially on weekly rags, when a cops press release will usually suffice!
Report this comment
Observer, only on crown court lists, not county court.
Report this comment
@Observer: The lists we get for Mags court sometimes list a judge but are made two days in advance so often change.
Also does not give first name so checking is essential.
More and more court officials are actively obstructing information
Report this comment
Desker’s comment rings true with me. We often get surnames only for judges and have to scavenge round online looking for other cases they’ve heard elsewhere in courts where the officials aren’t so petty and bloody-minded. They can usually be found, but it’s typical of officialdom to force you to go the long way round.
Report this comment