The Government’s decision to require the deletion of the Courtsdesk archive has been framed as a dispute over media access to criminal hearings. For insurers and brokers, it also raises a broader question about how court data is consolidated, governed and accessed within an increasingly digitised justice system.
In November, HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) issued a cessation notice to Courtsdesk, citing what it described as “unauthorised sharing” of court data linked to a test feature and raising what it characterised as a data protection issue. The Government has since issued a final refusal, meaning the archive must now be deleted.
Polly Sayers, legal advisor and insurance market analyst at HCR Law, said the episode reflects an established tension within English law.
“Open justice is an entrenched principle in English law. In recent years, this has evolved to include digital transparency in the form of broadcasting court proceedings, live-streaming and remote observation, access to court documents and the publication of judgments,” she said.
Within that development, “‘Courtsdesk’, a platform piloted in agreement with HMCTS, allowed journalists to track criminal court cases by consolidating information into an accessible, searchable digital platform.”
She said the Ministry of Justice’s decision “was made due to data protection issues, including third-party disclosure of sensitive information.” In the short term, this “could impact upon the media’s ability to report on developing criminal cases in a timely manner.”
However, she added that the Ministry has made clear the decision “does not impact upon journalist’s ability to access court information (like court lists and published judgments).” In practice, the information will still be available, “albeit perhaps in a less streamlined way.”
That distinction between access and streamlining is relevant beyond media reporting. Criminal proceedings are monitored across the insurance market for exposure tracking, litigation trend awareness and reputational risk assessment. The efficiency with which such information can be searched and consolidated can affect how easily developments are identified.
Courtsdesk had originally been approved in 2021 to test whether a national digital news feed of listings and registers could improve coverage of the criminal courts. More than 1,500 journalists across 39 organisations used the platform.
According to the company, journalists were given no advance notice of 1.6 million criminal hearings. Listings were accurate on just 4.2 per cent of sitting days. Half a million weekend cases were heard without notification to the press. Two-thirds of courts routinely heard cases without advance media notice, and 17 courts that supplied outcome data never once published an advance listing during the period examined.
In remarks reported by The Times, Enda Leahy, chief executive of Courtsdesk, said: “HMCTS’s own data proves they can’t do it - their records were accurate 4.2 per cent of the time, 1.6 million cases were heard without any advance notice to the press.”
HMCTS said the press would retain full access to court information and that appropriate action would always be taken to safeguard the processing of personal data. When asked what specific data protection issues were in use, it did not comment.
Sayers said, “The benefit that a platform like Courtsdesk brings necessarily needs to be balanced with principles of privacy and data-sharing concerns. This balancing act will only continue as we transition to an increasingly digitised justice system.”
For brokers and underwriters, the issue is not whether court information remains public, but how digital transparency is structured and governed as justice systems modernise.
