Talk:Public interest immunity
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Opening heading
[edit]Added the following - Crown Prosecution Service v Cornish Stannary Parliament [2002] - A Public Interest Immunity Certificate was presented to the court by the Crown Prosecution Service after about ten minutes of this hearing. A possible reason for the PII was that the Duchy of Cornwall refuses to reveal the circumstances under which it transferred several of its properties (including Tintagel Castle) to the care of English Heritage. see - On the Road to Justice for the Cornish
Examples
[edit]I'm not sure how useful the examples section is. Why are these examples chosen? If they stand for points of law, shouldn't the article focus on those points? ElectricLemon (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Public Interest Immunity → Public interest immunity –
Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. A quick google search shows that lower case is commonly used. Tony (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support alternate move to Public-interest immunity per WP:MOSCAPS and WP:HYPHEN. --Pnm (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll go along with this, since it's English in origin, even though some American writers wouldn't use the hyphen themselves. I'd also be ok with unhyphenated if anyone objected. Tony (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- While you'll see American newspapers following the same guidelines as WP:HYPHEN – the New York Times is very consistent about it, for example – most Americans don't follow it in common usage. It's worth following Wikipedia MOS nevertheless. The point of having a manual of style is consistency, which requires applying the style guidelines. Editors create wikilinks using article titles, so if articles aren't titled according to the MOS, we end up with noncompliant prose too. --Pnm (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll go along with this, since it's English in origin, even though some American writers wouldn't use the hyphen themselves. I'd also be ok with unhyphenated if anyone objected. Tony (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Public-interest immunity. Black's Law Dictionary, which is American, hyphenates "public-interest" when it's used as an adjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Tomlinson example is inconsistent with description of PIIs in opening paragraph
[edit]In the opening paragraph we say:
Public-interest immunity (PII), previously known as Crown privilege, is a principle of English common law under which the English courts can grant a court order allowing one litigant to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants
So these orders just allow exceptions to normal evidence disclosure rules? Okay. But then we are told...
Tomlinson v HMG. In 1995, former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson attempted to bring MI6 before an employment tribunal to seek compensation for unfair dismissal. MI6 argued that this would "damage national security" and obtained a PII certificate from the then foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind to block Tomlinson's application.
... that a PII can be used to "block" a case against the state from being brought at all (i.e. effectively giving the state an automatic win), a far more drastic matter than simply allowing the state to withhold evidence.
Which is correct? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)