Lord Neuberger describes open justice as a procedural principle requiring that ‘what goes on in court and what a court decides is open to scrutiny’ (Neuberger, 2011). The prime rationale given for this principle is that it is a safety check on procedural fairness. Such a conception of open justice applies on only a superficial level in inquests into use-of-force deaths at the hands of the state. This paper examines the practice of, and rationales behind, opening up use-of-force deaths at the hands of the state to scrutiny through inquests. They suggest a primarily intrinsic rather than instrumental link between openness and inquests’ purposes, which requires a reframing of traditional conceptions of open justice in this context. It is further argued that recognition theory can provide the normative link between openness and justice in these circumstances – a link that is implicit in the term ‘open justice’ but rarely explored in inquests.

No abstract

Thirty-two subjects were examined on a visual matching task. They were tested for their ability to maintain an orientation with respect to a particular direction in the horizontal plane, while being kept in circumstances designed to minimize their input of information and create thereby some conceptual confusion. The results suggest that subjects tend to make corrections as if they were in the same position in space throughout, even though they have no necessary reason for supposing this to be true and some reasons for supposing the opposite. It seemed that non-verbal information had to be presented to the subjects in order to suppress this tendency. Voluntary rotation of the subject from one setting to the next produced no more than chance errors, while arbitrary rotations only produced errors when cues were inconsistent, or possibly where no cues were available at all. In the cases where no cues—or minimal cues-were available, assumptions were made by the subjects about the nature of the environment. This caused both errors and correct responses for reasons that were not justified by the evidence in the hands of the subject. Introspective reports revealed some interesting results as to the cues utilized and concepts consciously formulated by the subjects for their use.