ABSTRACT
There are circumstances when the court may justify hearing a case in camera (in private or ‘in secret’), for instance where the open justice principle can hinder successful prosecutions, particularly in cases that threaten national security and acts of terrorism. Witnesses may fear that if their identity is revealed to the defendant, his associates or the public generally, they or their friends and family may well be at risk of serious harm. 3 The test is one of ‘necessity’ and an application to proceed in camera should be supported by relevant evidence. When informed that a witness is fearful of giving evidence, prosecutors will liaise closely with the police to consider the range of options available to them both at common law and by virtue of statute. 4
To restrain the freedom of the press there should be a pressing social need for the restriction, convincingly established by proper, concrete evidence, and the restrictions must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The need for any reporting restriction must be convincingly established and the terms of any order ought to be proportionate, going no further than is necessary to meet the relevant objective, as was held in A-G v Leveller Magazine Ltd (1979) . 5 One example could be if one report refers to an unnamed defendant having been convicted of rape of his daughter and another report names the defendant but does not identify the relationship between the defendant and the witness. This is referred to as ‘jigsaw identifi cation’.
