House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838204600303 |
| Published date | 01 August 1982 |
| Date | 01 August 1982 |
| Subject Matter | Comments on Cases |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
CONTEMPT
OF
COURT
BY USE OF
DOCUMENTS
OBTAINED
BY
DISCOVERY
Home Office v. Harman
Asolicitor who was legal officer of the National Council
of
Civil
Liberties acted as solicitor for a person who sued the Home Office
for damages arising out
of
his treatment in an experimental
"control
unit."
The Home Office disclosed a large number
of
documents on the express condition that they should be used only
for the purpose of the trial. The solicitor replied that she was well
aware
of
the rule that documents obtained on discovery should not
be used for any purpose other than the case in question. After the
trial, the solicitor allowed a journalist who was to her knowledge a
feature writer to have access to documents which the Home Office
had been ordered to disclose and which had been read out in court.
An article, highly critical of the Home Office, was published on the
basis
of
these documents. The High Court, the Court
of
Appeal
and, now, the House
of
Lords have alike held that the solicitor was
guilty
of
contempt of court: see [1982] 2 W.L.R. 338; [1982] 1 All
E.R. 532. The rule
of
law has thus been reiterated that, where in the
course
of
discovery in litigation, asolicitor obtains documents
belonging to his adversary, he gives an implied undertaking that he
will not permit them to be used for any purpose other than the
litigation in question. The fact that the documents are read out in
open court, whether admitted in evidence or not, does not bring
that undertaking to an end.
Of
the majority
of
the members of the
House who reaffirmed this rule in the circumstances
of
the present
case, it was, however, also the opinion that the present practice
of
allowing bona fide reporters access to documents which have been
read out is in the interests
of
justice, so long as it is not abused and
is simply for the purpose of ensuring the production of an accurate
report
of
what was said in court. But Lord Keith emphasised that
there are hazards in such a practice and expressed the view that, if
153
To continue reading
Request your trial