Attorney General v Jonathan Cape [1975]
Share
Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1975] 3 All ER 484 is a significant UK constitutional law case, dealing with the balance between the rule of law and the protection of government confidentiality, particularly in the context of Cabinet discussions.
The Attorney General sought an injunction to prevent Jonathan Cape Ltd and the Sunday Times from publishing the diaries of the late Richard Crossman, a Cabinet minister. These diaries contained records of cabinet discussions and advice about civil servants. The Attorney General argued that the publication would undermine the doctrine of collective responsibility, as it involved disclosing confidential Cabinet discussions.
Lord Widgery LCJ held that while the court had the power to restrain disclosure of confidential information to protect the doctrine of collective responsibility, in this case, there was no sufficient public interest in restraining disclosure. He acknowledged the equitable doctrine that a person should not profit from the wrongful publication of information received in confidence. However, he also emphasised that the court should intervene only in clear cases where continuing confidentiality could be demonstrated.
Lord Widgery recognised the existence of the doctrine of collective responsibility, stating that the Cabinet must be in possession of secret or confidential information at all times. He held that the publication of individual opinions by Cabinet Ministers in the course of Cabinet discussions could be restrained by the court when clearly necessary in the public interest. However, he also noted that there must be a limit in time after which the duty to restrain publication lapses, and reliance should be placed on the good sense and good taste of the Minister or ex-Minister.
The case established the principle that although conventions, such as the doctrine of collective responsibility, are not inherently legally enforceable, they may give rise to legal obligations that the court can enforce. It clarified the circumstances under which the court could intervene to restrain the publication of confidential government information, emphasising the importance of balancing public interest with the need to protect the confidentiality of certain information, especially concerning Cabinet discussions.
The Attorney General sought an injunction to prevent Jonathan Cape Ltd and the Sunday Times from publishing the diaries of the late Richard Crossman, a Cabinet minister. These diaries contained records of cabinet discussions and advice about civil servants. The Attorney General argued that the publication would undermine the doctrine of collective responsibility, as it involved disclosing confidential Cabinet discussions.
Lord Widgery LCJ held that while the court had the power to restrain disclosure of confidential information to protect the doctrine of collective responsibility, in this case, there was no sufficient public interest in restraining disclosure. He acknowledged the equitable doctrine that a person should not profit from the wrongful publication of information received in confidence. However, he also emphasised that the court should intervene only in clear cases where continuing confidentiality could be demonstrated.
Lord Widgery recognised the existence of the doctrine of collective responsibility, stating that the Cabinet must be in possession of secret or confidential information at all times. He held that the publication of individual opinions by Cabinet Ministers in the course of Cabinet discussions could be restrained by the court when clearly necessary in the public interest. However, he also noted that there must be a limit in time after which the duty to restrain publication lapses, and reliance should be placed on the good sense and good taste of the Minister or ex-Minister.
The case established the principle that although conventions, such as the doctrine of collective responsibility, are not inherently legally enforceable, they may give rise to legal obligations that the court can enforce. It clarified the circumstances under which the court could intervene to restrain the publication of confidential government information, emphasising the importance of balancing public interest with the need to protect the confidentiality of certain information, especially concerning Cabinet discussions.
