A comparison and critique of closed court hearings

A comparison and critique of closed court hearings

This article compares the use of 'closed court hearings', by which someone accused of wrongdoing is not permitted to be present whilst evidence is led against them. Typically, neither is a legal representative of their choosing. Comparisons are made among the European Union, North America and Australia. It finds that the United States and Canada courts have been most prepared to defend the fundamental right of an individual to confront their accusers, and test the veracity of evidence said to implicate them. Australian courts, as shown by the recent Pompano decision, have been most willing to sacrifice fundamental civil rights for expediency.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, Vathek publications may not be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency or the Copyright Clearance Center. Please contact Mairwen Lloyd-Williams (E-mail: mlw@vathek.com) for further information.