The High Court has approved three applications for skeleton arguments, witness statements, and copies of the daily transcripts made under the open justice principle in a request made by the mouseinthecourt.
The provision of these documents will bring a significant level of transparency to the 20-week-trial between the administrators of a failed investment company and those said to have unlawfully profited from the misappropriation of funds. The defendants deny any accusations of wrong-doing.
You can read our write-up of the issues in the case here – “London Capital Finance Trial begins“.
The Rolls Building – location of the trial
London Capital Finance raised £237m by selling some 16,000 ‘bonds’ to over 11,000 members of the public.
An independent investigation into the FCA’s supervision of London Capital & Finance concluded in 2020 with Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE finding that “the root causes of the FCA’s failure to regulate LCF appropriately were significant gaps and weaknesses in the policies“.
There is therefore a significant public interest in all the circumstances surrounding how the company was run being brought to light.
The then Master of the Rolls Lord Wolfe explained the importance of the openness of the judicial process in 1998:
“This is the reason it is so important not to forget why proceedings are required to be subjected to the full glare of a public hearing. It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially. It can result in evidence becoming available which would not become available if the proceedings were conducted behind closed doors or with one or more of the parties’ or witnesses’ identity concealed. It makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely“.
The publication of these documents also brings advantages to the defendants who may well find that the nuances of their evidence simply isn’t reported. Publishers which are driven by commercial factors find it difficult to justify the cost of sending a reporter to cover even the second day of a trial, let alone the whole thing.
The role of this blogger, driven by a motivation of transparency and genuine interest in the subject matter, rather than by generating ad-revenue from clickbait headlines, hopefully is considered to be fulfilling an important public watchdog role.
We do have a ‘cheese fund‘ by which donations can be made.
Making the request
You can read my 4-page-request here, which relied in part on the excellent work of journalist Nick Wallis in his coverage of the now infamous Bates v Post Office trial.
The judgment in that matter reveals that:
“The fourth application was by Mr Wallis, a freelance journalist, which he made himself. He had attended every day of the trial, and was posting reports online of what was occurring during the legal argument and evidence at the trial.“
“…neither party objected to his being provided with the daily transcript at the end of each day, or the finalised version thereafter…This meant that Mr Wallis, and by extension all those who read his reports (which would have included many of the hundreds of Claimants), had access to fully accurate passages of evidence and argument.“
My application was discussed in court on Wednesday 21st February and was introduced by Stephen Robins KC, representing the administrators:
[I had previously clarified that my request for witness statements was when they had been deployed in court, rather than in advance of that.]
With no objections the applications were approved. Huzzah.
I’m grateful to the parties for their co-operation and the court and its staff which helped facilitate the request.
You can see a list of court files we are making public here.
Mouse in the Court 