“Nothing but a Dame”

https://youtu.be/Ljm9CDRAhMQwith apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein

Some irrational non sequiturs from Judge Hill in Peacekeepers vs LCC (2025)*

“80. Second, the Claimant contends that the regulations are unlawful in requiring people to submit their names before securing a remote access direction.

81. I do not consider this arguable. Courts are required to know who is watching their proceedings remotely. Indeed they are required to do so in order to ensure that section 85A(5), with its reference to “preventing persons who are not meant to watch or listen”, is complied with.”

So who the hell are this new underclass of “persons who are not meant to watch or listen” ?

The judicially blind and deaf ?

And how is this sub-caste of untouchables distinguished from the rest of the great unwashed?

And most importantly how did this general principal accord with the right to open justice?

It gets worse…

“86. The District Judge does not, therefore, refer to having had any involvement in this issue. However, I assume for present purposes that paragraph 9.5 of the SFG is correct, and that he refused to permit members of the public to use empty seats in the courtroom other than the public gallery. Mr Horn suggested during the hearing before me that these were the seats normally reserved for the press, probation officers and others.

87. Again, however, this was a case management decision involving judicial discretion. While another District Judge might have taken a more flexible approach, it was not arguably irrational to limit the numbers of people attending the hearing to the 8 in the public gallery.”

Of course it was you spoon!

So let’s unpack Henrietta’s ‘logic’ for a minute…

30 People wanted to get into the court, there were 8 in the public gallery and a further 13 more empty seats reserved for the press and probation officers that were not used but the judge in this case refused to allow the other court attendees to use the empty seats ( and standing room ) and 22 people were in effect excluded from the court because…

it was ‘a case management decision’  so according the Henrietta, open justice is not a thing when it’s a case management decision, who knew?

And so that is alright then 🤪

* https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2025/1493?query=[2025]+EWHC+1493+(Admin)