Tweet
"This application concerned an appeal by Mr Willford for an anonymity order in relation to the proceedings. More specifically Mr Willford was seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and relied on the statutory provisions that prohibit the regulator from disclosing the existence of an investigation, its progress or its outcome until concluded and then only if it results in some form of sanction."
"The Court rejected Mr Willford's appeal. It held that principles of open justice demanded that proceedings be conducted and determined in public. That meant that, as a matter of course, judgments should be published in full without concealing the identity of the parties or others involved, whether by anonymisation or redaction. The Court considered that if Mr Willford had been facing criminal proceedings he would not have been entitled to have his identity protected and the same should hold true with regulatory disciplinary procedures."
http://www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?optio...721&Itemid=108
"The Court rejected Mr Willford's appeal. It held that principles of open justice demanded that proceedings be conducted and determined in public. That meant that, as a matter of course, judgments should be published in full without concealing the identity of the parties or others involved, whether by anonymisation or redaction. The Court considered that if Mr Willford had been facing criminal proceedings he would not have been entitled to have his identity protected and the same should hold true with regulatory disciplinary procedures."
http://www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?optio...721&Itemid=108
