AC-2025-LON-002497 - [2025] EWHC 2842 (Admin)

No party seeks to argue against this course as their common aim is for a CMP to be adopted in which the court can consider all the material which was protected in the Green Hearings, rather than any part of that material potentially being held to be subject to PII, and so disregarded. Nevertheless, it has to be recognised that this course involves the court using the common law to “supplement” the JSA 2013, something the court should be slow to do, and to do so in a way which would, in effect, expand the definition of “sensitive material”.

I am, nonetheless, persuaded that the court may adopt a CMP pursuant to both the JSA 2013 and, in respect of material falling outside the s.6(11) definition, the Haralambous jurisdiction in a single case. If it were otherwise, the court would have inherent power to adopt a CMP in this case, with a view to protecting material the disclosure of which would be damaging to important public interests other than national security if there was no “sensitive material” as defined in s.6(11), but the existence of any such national security material would result in the court losing the power to protect and consider non-national security material in a CMP.

As I have said, the JSA 2013 was enacted to enable CMPs to be held in a broader range of civil proceedings than was possible prior to its enactment. In my judgment, Parliament did not intend to cut down or abrogate any inherent power to adopt a CMP in circumstances going beyond those addressed in the JSA 2013. Accordingly, I conclude that the court has the power to employ a CMP in this case in reliance on the JSA 2013 Act (in respect of “sensitive material”) and otherwise pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction.