A Rational Approach to Cabinet Immunity Under the Common Law
AbstractThe public interest immunity (PII) doctrine empowers the government to suppress information, the disclosure of which would injure the community as a whole. However, when such information is relevant to the fair adjudication of legal rights, a tension arises between two competing aspects of the public interest: the interest of good government and the interest of justice. This tension raises questions of constitutional importance. Who should decide which aspect of the public interest must win? How should that decision be made? The aim of this article is to address these questions. In the first section, it is claimed that the courts, as opposed to the government, should have the final word on the validity of PII claims, as it would be contrary to the rule of law to prevent them from meaningfully reviewing the validity of PII claims and controlling the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings. In addition, because of their greater independence and impartiality, judges are better placed than public officials to fairly adjudicate PII claims, especially when the government is a party to the proceedings. No classes of government secrets, not even Cabinet secrets, should be exempted from judicial review. While there is a consensus on these principles under the common law, the level of deference afforded to Cabinet immunity claims, and the way in which these claims are assessed, is not consistent in the Commonwealth. To fix this shortcoming, in the second section, it is argued that the courts should adopt a new rational approach consisting of four pillars: a narrow standard of discovery, an executive onus of justification, a cost-benefit analysis, and a judicial duty to minimize injury. The implementation of a rational approach would bolster predictability, certainty, and transparency in the judicial assessment of Cabinet immunity claims, and foster a better balance between the interests of good government and justice.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.