A malleable and complex concept relevant to both privacy and defamation claims which allows for the publication of content on the basis of its contribution to public debate; although it is important to bear in mind that the courts have stated on many occasions that what is 'interesting to the public' on the basis of it being scandalous or newsworthy is not necessarily in the public interest.

Public interest entities are defined in article 2 of the Statutory Audit Directive 2006/43/EC (as amended by the Statutory Audit Amending Directive 2014/56/EU) as: • entities governed by the law of a Member State whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of any Member State within the meaning of point 14 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC • credit institutions as defined in point 1 of Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, other than those referred to in Article 2 of that Directive • insurance undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 91/674/EEC, or • entities designated by Member States as public-interest entities, for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business, their size or the number of their employees Since 1 January 2021 the definition of a PIE has changed so that companies and other entities that were PIEs only because they issued securities on EU regulated markets and not on UK regulated markets, and which are not banks, building societies or insurers, are no longer classified as PIEs for the purpose of the application of the EU Audit Regulation in the UK.

This Practice Note considers when disclosure and/or inspection of sensitive documents may be avoided because of public interest immunity (PII). It looks at the procedure for claiming PII and obtaining the court’s permission to withhold documents. Waiver of PII is also discussed. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Closed Material Procedure. What is public interest immunity (PII)? A party may object to the disclosure and/or inspection of a document on the grounds that its production would harm the public interest. Such an objection is known as objecting on the grounds of PII, the ‘immunity’ referring to the ability to avoid disclosing or permitting the inspection of the material. It was previously known as ‘crown privilege’. PII applies in both civil and criminal law contexts. The ‘proper approach’ to PII involving a three-stage test is discussed in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide, para 19.2.2 and following. In 1968, in Conway v Rimmer, the House of Lords, overturning the previous approach, allowed a court to review documents for which privilege against

Public interest immunity and disclosure The right to a fair trial is predicated on the principle of equality of arms of which an essential element is access to information collected by the prosecution in the course of an investigation. Disclosure is determined by a statutory single test whereby any material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the case for the defence should be disclosed. The right to disclosure of this material is limited by the doctrine of public interest immunity (PII), which allows the court to withhold relevant information from the defence where it decides it is in the public interest to do so. The court must apply a balancing exercise to determine the interests of the defendant in receiving all the information relevant to their defence with the interest of the state in protecting sensitive information. See Practice Note: Obtaining disclosure of unused evidence. The doctrine was developed in the civil courts where it was determined that documents need not be produced where it was in

A report by the auditor conforming with the duty when conducting the audit to consider whether it is in the public interest to report on any matter coming to his or her notice so that it can be considered by the authority or brought to the attention of the public (see the Audit Commission Act 1998 (ACA 1998), s 8).

Since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004), SI 2004/3391, there have been arguments that disclosing information risks inhibiting frank and open policy discussion within public authorities. Arguments about a chilling effect on discussion and the need for a safe space for debate are normally put forward as part of the public interest considerations advanced by public authorities looking to apply a qualified exemption to a request for information. Key examples include FIA 2000, s 35 (formulations of government policy, etc), FIA 2000, s 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and EIR 2004, reg 12(4)(d) and (e) (exceptions to the duty to disclose environmental information). Both safe space and chilling effect arguments focus on the need to protect internal deliberation and the decision-making process. What is meant by a ‘chilling effect’ and by ‘safe space’? Public authorities have sought to argue that if they were obliged to disclose details of internal discussions it would inhibit or ‘chill’ the free and

The process by which a company is wound up in the public interest rather than because it is insolvent.

Public law concerns the exercise of power by the state and public bodies, and the legal controls on government decision‑making and public administration. It typically governs relationships between individuals (or companies) and central government, devolved administrations, local authorities, regulators, the police and other public authorities. In the UK and Ireland, “public law” is a broad descriptive term rather than a single statutory definition. It encompasses constitutional law, administrative law (including judicial review), human rights, aspects of EU and retained EU law, and certain areas of criminal, immigration, asylum, mental health and prison law where state powers are engaged. Public law practice focuses on challenging or defending the legality, rationality and procedural fairness of decisions, policies and legislation, often by way of judicial review or statutory appeal. It is central to issues of separation of powers, the rule of law and access to justice. The concept and usage are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, though procedural rules, court structures and sources of constitutional law (for example, the uncodified UK constitution versus the written Irish Constitution) differ between jurisdictions.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It summarises when human rights and judicial review grounds can be used in a public law defence against a decision to seek possession from a tenant. A local authority (LA) landlord is a public body and its actions are open to scrutiny on public law grounds. It is well-established that where an LA brings a claim for possession of residential premises, a defence can be raised on conventional judicial review principles. See Practice Note: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used. An LA will also be a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and claims for possession may also then potentially engage Convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), notably Article 8, the right to respect for one’s home. Private Registered Providers (PRPs) (England) and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) (Wales) Non-LA social housing landlords (classed as ‘private registered providers’ (PRPs) in

This Practice Note provides an overview of the Public Law Outline (PLO) for care, supervision and other proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). It explains the purpose and scope of the PLO, the proceedings to which it applies, the key principles underpinning case management, the powers of the court and the wider procedural framework under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. For further practical guidance on procedure in public law children proceedings, see Practice Notes: • Public law children procedure—commencing proceedings under the Public Law Outline • Public law children procedure—case management under the Public Law Outline • Public law children procedure—extensions to the timetable and withdrawal of proceedings • Case management in public children proceedings • Public law fact-finding and split hearings, and • Online public law children proceedings On 22 April 2014, the PLO for care, supervision and other proceedings under ChA 1989, Pt IV came into effect as FPR 2010, PD 12A, which sets out an outline for

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on case management under the Public Law Outline (PLO). It explains how public law children proceedings are managed after issue, including the timetable for the proceedings and the child, directions, advocates' meetings, the case management hearing (CMH) and the issues resolution hearing (IRH). For further practical guidance on procedure in public law children proceedings, see Practice Notes: • Public law children procedure—Public Law Outline: overview and key principles • Public law children procedure—commencing proceedings under the Public Law Outline • Public law children procedure—extensions to the timetable and withdrawal of proceedings • Case management in public children proceedings • Public law fact-finding and split hearings, and • Online public law children proceedings See also Procedural Guide: Procedural guide—Public Law Outline. Timetable for the proceedings and the child The court will draw up a timetable for the proceedings with a view to disposing of the application: • without delay, and • in any event within 26 weeks beginning with the day on which the application was issued with

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on commencing public law children proceedings under the Public Law Outline (PLO). It covers the pre-proceedings process, issuing an application, the relevant court forms, annex documents, standard templates and orders, issue, allocation and service of proceedings, and the use of online procedures where applicable. For further practical guidance on procedure in public law children proceedings, see Practice Notes: • Public law children procedure—Public Law Outline: overview and key principles • Public law children procedure—case management under the Public Law Outline • Public law children procedure—extensions to the timetable and withdrawal of proceedings • Case management in public children proceedings • Public law fact-finding and split hearings, and • Online public law children proceedings See also Procedural Guide: Procedural guide—Public Law Outline. Pre-proceedings checklist Under the PLO, an application for a care or supervision order or an application for other orders under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) must be issued in Form C110A. The 'annex documents' are the documents specified