Celia Kitzinger on behalf of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, 17th January 2026
This is our response to the Online Procedure Rule Committee consultation about the Core Rules and Pilot Schemes 2026. There was very little about transparency and open justice in these rules. We responded solely on that matter. More information about the consultation exercise (now closed) is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-online-procedure-core-rules-and-pilot-schemes-rules-2026
Transparency and open justice are core to the operation of justice in a democratic society. They are addressed only in 7(g) which says that ‘the powers of the court or tribunal to achieve the Overriding Objective include […] allowing reasonable public access to court and tribunal decision-making.’
This is not sufficient.
The Rules should make clear that the Online Procedure does not justify derogation from the principles of transparency and open justice. In all cases where (but for the use of the Online Procedure), members of the public and/or journalists would be permitted to observe proceedings and/or inspect documents in the court record, this should remain the case where the Online Procedure is in operation. Where use of the Online Procedure can enhance public access, it should be used so to do.
The power of the court should include creating a mechanism for achieving transparency, and for publishing the procedure to be used for public access.
Public access to court and tribunal decision-making (including access to the process not merely the outcome) should not simply be “allowed” but should be actively promoted and where possible enhanced by the Online Procedure.
Recognising the range of practice across the courts, and the more restrictive practices currently in place in the Court of Protection and Family Court, methods for implementation of public access should be ceded to the relevant jurisdiction’s own Rules and judicial case management powers – but with the proviso that use of the Online Procedure cannot justify more restrictive access to court decision-making than would otherwise pertain to any given case. This includes public access to, and reporting (subject to embargos etc) of, proceedings held in private (or ex parte/without notice) as currently permitted in the COP at the discretion of the court.
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 