Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

 

The Transparency and Open Justice Board

The Lady Chief Justice established the Transparency and Open Justice Board ('Board') in April 2024. The purpose of the Board is to lead and coordinate the promotion of transparency and open justice across the Courts and Tribunals in England & Wales.

The Key Objectives

The Board published its final Key Objectives on 22 July 2025. The Board also published its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key Objectives. The Key Objectives represent the high-level outcomes that will guide the Board’s work. They will be used by Courts and Tribunals to identify areas where changes can and should be made, as well as to measure the outcomes from any change programme. The implementation of the Key Objectives is currently being piloted by Pilots in the Court of Appeal and the Civil Courts. 

The Key Objectives apply to what the Board refers to as “core documents”, which include expert reports. The Board notes:

"The principles of transparency and open justice generally require the proceedings and decisions of Courts and Tribunals to be open and accessible to everyone (including the public and the media) thereby supporting and promoting reports of proceedings and decisions of Courts and Tribunals. On a practical level this should include... save where the Court or Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant document (in whole or in part) must be withheld, timely and effective access to the core documents relating to the proceedings that are held by the Court or Tribunal, including... the evidence (including any expert and/or audio/visual evidence) that is, or has been, considered by the Court or Tribunal at a hearing in public."

The Key Objectives envisage that, in future, the party seeking to withhold information in core documents will need to apply proactively to the Court or Tribunal seeking a derogation from open justice. The Board notes that it "considers that it is the responsibility of the person who asserts that a derogation from open justice is required to raise the issue with the Court/Tribunal and to seek an order that the relevant information be withheld from the public… in the absence an application to impose restrictions, the Court/Tribunal will proceed on the basis that documents/evidence submitted to the Court during proceedings will be liable to be made public in the usual course. This is the embodiment of open justice. The burden is always on the person seeking the derogation from open justice to persuade the Court or Tribunal by sufficiently cogent evidence that the restriction sought is necessary and proportionate."

In discussing access to the core documents, the Board notes that "[c]onfidentiality is, however, not usually sufficient on its own to justify derogations from open justice. It is usually only where the proceedings are brought to vindicate that confidentiality that derogations are justified… [t]hose principles [of open justice] make clear that the process of litigation in Courts and Tribunals may well lead to information that a party or witness would rather have kept private or confidential is exposed to public glare."

The Board also notes “that the need to protect the integrity of criminal proceedings (particularly those tried by jury) is likely to justify more significant restrictions as to non-party access to witness statements and expert’s reports in that jurisdiction. This fortifies the Board in the view that it is for the relevant jurisdictions to determine when evidence and other documents should be made publicly available pursuant to the open justice principles."

Each Court or Tribunal would need to determine when an expert report becomes available to non-parties. The Board notes that "the timing of when such documents would become available would be matters to be considered by each Court and Tribunal to resolve. Nevertheless, the Board accepts that there may be good reasons why evidence (including expert evidence) should only be publicly available once it has been relied upon by a party at a hearing in public."

 On expert evidence, the Board concludes that:

"[f]inally, in relation to expert evidence, it will be a matter for each Court and Tribunal jurisdiction to decide whether and, if so, at what point non-parties should be provide [sic] with copies or have access to expert evidence. However, the starting point is that expert evidence is evidence. If it has been relied upon by a party as part of its evidence before a Court or Tribunal at a hearing in public then, unless there is a convincing justification for departing from the usual principle, that evidence should be publicly available along with all the other evidence in the case. The Board recognises that, as with other witness evidence, there will be an important issue as to when this evidence becomes publicly available."

The exact implementation of the Key objectives will depend on each Court and Tribunal. The Board notes that "[i]f the relevant committees with responsibility for the procedural rules that apply in Courts and Tribunals consider that changes should be made to those rules to reflect the requirements of open justice, then it will be for each committee to consider the identified benefits of the proposed rule change and its likely impact. The rules committees may also consult on proposed rule changes."

Guidance on the implications of transparency and open justice on expert reports

There is a lot that is still unknown about how each rule committee will seek to implement the Key Objectives and there may be significant differences in how each implements them. The Board recognises that "[t]he level of openness and transparency that can be achieved will always depend upon the nature of the work of the relevant Court or Tribunal." This is already evident, for example, in the Civil Procedure Rule Committee's previous view that, in the civil jurisdiction, these changes should not apply to "medical" reports. We will keep members informed of the implications of these changes as they are considered and implemented in practice. 

We will also continue to point out our concerns to the rule committees as they look to implement the Key Objectives. However, members should be aware that, as the Key Objectives are implemented by Courts and Tribunals, there is likely to be greater access by non-parties to expert reports. We have provided some initial guidance for members on best practice in these circumstances. 

1. Be aware that in future the default position is likely to be that your expert report will be accessible by non-parties once it has been placed before the Court or Tribunal.

2. Do not include your own personal information, other than as required by the applicable procedural rules, in your expert report or joint statement. For example, do not include your contact details (telephone number, email or physical address) in these documents.

3. Have a discussion with your instructing party about how they would like you to deal with any confidential information in your report. 

4. Be aware that blanket claims of confidentiality may not be accepted by the Court.  

5. If you work in a field where you may be subject to media attention or harassment by non-parties because of the nature or contents of your expert report, you may wish to review the personal information you include on social media and other publicly available profiles. 

6. Contact the EWI at policy@ewi.org.uk if you experience problems related to these changes. We will continue to work with policy and rule makers to ensure that their decision making is fully informed by an understanding of the concerns of our members.