[ad_1]
Public interest immunity (PII) is a British common law doctrine used to prevent the disclosure of information that could harm public safety. PII requests are reviewed by the court, which must balance the need for due process with the need to protect sensitive information. The doctrine has attracted controversy due to allegations of abuse by ministers and unfairness to those under investigation.
Public interest immunity (PII) is a doctrine used in British common law when it is believed that the disclosure of certain information may be detrimental to public safety. When a PII request is filed, it is reviewed by the court, and the court can issue an order that the information not be disclosed. PII requests are usually made by government ministers, although there may be other circumstances in which they may be used.
This doctrine must balance two conflicting needs. It is generally accepted that when a case is heard in court, both parties should have access to all information relating to the case so that the case can proceed fairly. In a process known as forensic discovery, information is shared so that both parties have an opportunity to prepare. This is especially important in criminal cases where the evidence can be used to convict someone of a very serious crime, and therefore that person should have access to that evidence for scrutiny and study.
However, some types of evidence can pose a threat to public safety. Disclosure of information could jeopardize national security, expose police methods and make police work difficult, or threaten the safety of children. Similarly, the identities of whistleblowers and sources are also deemed worthy of protection. In these cases, a public interest immunity claim may be filed to prevent the disclosure of evidence.
The court must carefully weigh a public interest immunity filing. Courts don’t want to threaten the health and safety of the public by allowing sensitive information to be released, but they also don’t want to deprive people of due process in a court of law. If the request is accepted, the party that possesses sensitive information is prohibited from exposing the same to the other. In some cases, the court may also rule that a case must be kept in camera for security reasons so that sensitive information cannot be disclosed to the public.
Sometimes known as a crown privilege, this legal doctrine has attracted controversy. There have been allegations that ministers have abused public interest immunity to suppress potentially harmful or embarrassing information that is not necessarily a threat to the public. Similarly, some critics have argued that using public interest immunity to suppress materials used in investigations is unfair to the person under investigation, as it is difficult to challenge the results of an investigation when the methods are not known .
[ad_2]