In Camera Review

In Wyoming, as in almost all states, facts in contested workers’ compensation cases are developed within an administrative agency. When agency factual findings are challenged in court, the level of judicial deference applied to the agency is important and may be outcome determinative. Wyoming courts claim to apply the “substantial evidence” standard of review, often expressed as evidence that a “reasonable mind could accept” as supporting an agency determination. The Wyoming Supreme Court, however, also sometimes upholds workers’ compensation agency decisions that are deemed “not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” It is unclear whether this latter formulation is an odd version of the substantial evidence, or is another standard altogether. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark opinion in Universal Camera stands for the proposition that the decision of an administrative agency should be supported by more than just any evidence. While most agree that courts are not authorized to substitute their judgment for the decision of administrative agencies, Universal Camera established a court should not be required to acquiesce to an agency when it cannot in good conscience agree with it. The “overwhelming weight” standard seems in significant tension with this latter principle because it has at times been applied extremely deferentially by Wyoming courts. This article demonstrates, however, that the overwhelming weight standard was mistakenly adopted by the Wyoming courts in the nineteen-seventies based to a substantial degree on an outdated administrative law encyclopedia entry. The article argues that the standard should either be abandoned or much more clearly explained, especially in light of its questionable origins. The overwhelming weight standard, the article contends, is inconsistent with a contemporary legal understanding of substantial evidence. Furthermore, the overwhelming weight standard threatens to routinely deprive injured workers of benefits. Such an outcome is especially inappropriate in Wyoming, the constitution of which ensures that labor has “just protection” under law; provides citizens a fundamental right to access courts to assert claims for personal injury; forbids laws limiting damages for injury and death; and voids any agreement by an employer with an employee waiving a right to recover damages for death or injury. The article underscores that highly deferential judicial standards of agency review shift power to the executive branch, a policy choice should be made cautiously and explicitly, not arrived at accidentally.

No abstract available

The article determines that technical and forensic support of a defence counsel’s activities in criminal proceedings should be understood as a system of legal, organisational, scientific and technical provisions and applied measures for the development, implementation and practical use of technical means for the purpose of providing defence as intended, achieving the objectives of investigative ( search) and procedural actions, examination and recording of digital evidence. It is established that, as a general rule, current legislation does not prohibit the defence counsel from using technical and forensic means while participating in investigative (search) and procedural actions, at the same time, the defence counsel must notify all the participants of such an event of all the facts of their use, and the prosecution party, if there are objective grounds for this, although it may prohibit their use, but may do so only on the basis of a reasoned resolution, the investigating judge, the court – the ruling. It is well-grounded that the defence counsel has the right to choose the technical means which he/she plans to use for the purposes of defence, but the analysis of law enforcement practice allows to state that the most typical ones are: mobile phones for photo and video recording, making photocopies of procedural documents, material evidence, recording the procedural action; cameras for making copies of procedural documents, including during the familiarization with the criminal proceedings; video cameras for recording the procedure for conducting investigative (search) and other procedural actions; computer facilities for reviewing and making copies of digital traces and evidence, familiarising themselves with case files received in the “E-Court” system, and ensuring the electronic document control. We believe that the prospects for future research are to identify specific practical recommendations for the collection of evidence by a defence counsel, taking into account the characteristics of specific objects.

No abstract available

There are two operative provisions of title VII, both of which mitigate previous judicially imposed restrictions on governmental collection and presentation of evidence in "any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States.” The first purports to set aside the Supreme Court's holding in the 1968 case of Alderman v. United States, in which the Court held that, in cases involving unlawful electronic surveillance, the government must make full disclosure to the defendant of all records in its possession which contain any of his conversation or involving conversations which took place on premises owned by him. In so ruling, the Court specifically rejected the Government's contention that once a defendant has established his standing to contest admission of the evidence and the illegality of the Government's action, a court should then screen the Government's files in camera and deliver to the defendant only material which might prove "arguably relevant" in establishing the causal relationship between the unlawful surveillance and the evidence being challenged. The purpose of the second provision is to establish a rule of law that no court may consider any claim that evidence offered to prove a crime is inadmissible on the ground that it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act if the alleged unlawful act occurred more than five years prior to the crime being proved. Title VII is one of the more controversial sections of the Act. These provisions represent congressional unwillingness to abide the protracted procedural delays which have resulted primarily from motions to suppress evidence obtained by the Government via alleged illegal electronic surveillance. The Senate Committee Report on S. 30 noted that when an organized crime leader is brought into court, an alternative to tampering with the witnesses as a means of avoiding or delaying prosecution is to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. Motions to suppress evidence generally entail a long and costly process, "especially so in cases involving alleged illegal electronic surveillance.” The Senate Committee referred to a "procedural crisis" caused by the filing of motions to suppress, which was worsened by the Alderman requirement for full disclosure. Furthermore, where such disclosure is made, it is claimed that several undesirable results are possible, including the chilling effect it may have on other pending investigations and prosecutions, the damage which the reputations of innocent third parties may suffer, and the difficulty it may create in recruitment of confidential informants.

Purpose of the study. The practical demand for the institution of judicial review requires the legislator to solve its problems, which include the gaps and inconsistencies of the current legislation in this area, which leads to violations of the rights of participants in criminal proceedings. It is especially important to regulate in detail in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the procedural order of judicial review of investigative actions in relation to a lawyer, since this is a guarantee of the protection of attorney-client privilege. The article examines a number of current problems of legal regulation of preliminary judicial review of investigative actions in relation to a lawyer. Conclusions. The authors propose to exclude from Article 450.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the mandatory condition for conducting an inspection, search, seizure in relation to a lawyer: a criminal case initiated against the lawyer or his/her involvement as an accused. It creates unreasonable obstacles to the seizure of material evidence that is important for the criminal case. At the same time, the article emphasizes the importance of preserving the guarantees of protection of attorney-client privilege arising from the positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: mandatory preliminary judicial review, participation of a representative of the Bar Association and restriction of access of participants in investigative actions to attorney proceedings. The article considers the problem of inconsistency in regulating the subject of judicial review of investigative actions carried out in relation to a lawyer in Part 3 of Article 8 of the Federal Law "On Advocacy and the Bar in the Russian Federation" and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The violations of the rights of a lawyer in this area identified by the authors indicate the need to bring Articles 29, 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in line with the requirements of the above-mentioned law and the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

No abstract available

The article provides a comprehensive exploration of attorney-client privilege as a fundamental institution of the legal system ensuring an appropriate level of confidentiality in lawyer-client relationships. The author conducts a thorough analysis of the legislative definition and regulation of attorney-client privilege in Ukraine, examining in detail its legal content, boundaries, and protection mechanisms. Special attention is paid to comparing national legislation with relevant international standards, particularly the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The paper systematically highlights the relevance of this issue in the modern context of digitalization, which creates new challenges for protecting confidential information and requires rethinking traditional approaches to ensuring attorney-client privilege. The author reveals the multifaceted nature of attorney-client privilege, including such components as: the fact of seeking legal assistance, the motives for doing so, the content and nature of legal consultations, documents submitted to a lawyer, electronic correspondence, and other forms of communication. A significant aspect of the study is the examination of recent case law, particularly Reznik v. Ukraine (2025), which has become an important precedent emphasizing the need for a clear definition of attorney-client privilege and the implementation of effective legal protection mechanisms in national legislation. The author identifies and analyzes problematic aspects of current legal regulation and enforcement practices related to inconsistencies in Ukrainian legislation and the absence of unified standards for protecting confidential information. Based on the conducted analysis, the article proposes a set of scientifically grounded directions for improving the legal protection of attorney-client privilege. These include: harmonizing national legislation with international standards, strengthening judicial oversight mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the principle of confidentiality, improving cybersecurity procedures for protecting electronic data, and implementing additional legal guarantees for lawyers in the course of their professional activities. In conclusion, the author substantiates the necessity for systematic improvement of the legislative regulation of attorney-client privilege in Ukraine to ensure a high level of confidentiality in legal practice in accordance with European standards and ECHR case law. The research highlights the critical importance of developing clear procedures for identifying information protected by attorney-client privilege and establishing effective mechanisms for its protection, particularly in the context of interactions with law enforcement agencies and courts during investigative actions.

The client must be able to tell his secret to the attorney in order to receive the best assistance. The client can receive proper legal assistance from the attorney only if there is trust that the secret will not be revealed. Thus, the confidentiality of communication between the client and the attorney is an essential element of the right to assistance of counsel. It is a global trend to protect the secret of communication between attorneys and clients by regulating the seizure of the attorney's office of an investigative agency. However, Korea is only obligated not to divulge the client's secrets to attorneys, and there is no way to protect the secrets when they are violated by investigative agencies. In order to correct these problems, it is argued that the Korean Bar Association should introduce ‘Attorney-Client Privilege’. However, in Korea, where the litigation structure is different from that of the United States and there is no discovery system and a comprehensive law of evidence, the introduction of ‘Attorney-Client Privilege’ is more likely to add to the confusion. Rather, Korea, which has a legal system similar to Germany and France, which specifically stipulate the right to reject seizure in the Criminal Procedure Act, is expected to be in harmony with the current system to resolve the problem by revising the provisions of Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the right to reject seizure is to protect the client's secret, it should be revised to be exercised by not only attorneys but also clients. And, the secret of the exchange between the attorney and the client must be protected regardless of whether the attorney delivers it to the client or the client delivers it to the attorney. Since there is a high possibility that the client's secret is included in the documents prepared by the attorney, it is desirable to revise it to ‘the object created by the attorney for the purpose of legally assisting the client or containing the contents of the communication exchanged with the client’. In addition, the reason for the restriction of the right to reject seizure should be specifically revised to ‘if the client's consent is given, if the attorney is suspected of the client and an accomplice, if the attorney is suspected of destroying evidence, concealing criminals, or acquiring stolen goods, if the object of the right to reject seizure is the result of a crime, used for a crime, or related to a crime.’ Finally, it should be amended to a specific procedure that will be used when an attorney or client exercises the right to reject seizure or appeals against an investigative agency.

Regarding the attorney-client privilege, there is only Article 26 of the Attorney-at-Law Act regarding the “attorney’s duty to maintain confidentiality,” but there are no explicit provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act, Attorney-at-Law Act, or Civil Procedure Act. It is impossible to extract specific rights under the Criminal Procedure Act, such as resist of seizure and refusal to testify, from the right to receive assistance from an attorney under the Constitution, but it is clear that securing the contents of communications between an attorney and a client in a lawyer’s office and attempting to use them as evidence of the client’s guilt later undermines the right to receive assistance from an attorney. This paper does not assume that ACP is accepted as is in our current law, but rather attempts to determine the extent of the scope that can be resolved within the current regulations and the extent of the limitations of the current system. According to Article 112, even if there was a confidential conversation between the lawyer and the client and the conversation was documented, it does not fall under the category of “objects” and therefore does not fall under the grounds for refusal to seize under Article 112. However, when considering Article 112 in conjunction with the right to refuse to testify under Article 149, documents that can be refused to testify can be subject to refusal to seize under Article 112, and this interpretation is also possible under the current interpretation. Of course, even in that case, it must be in the lawyer’s possession and custody. If the confidential exchange between the lawyer and the client is documented and in the client’s possession, it is difficult to see it as a ground for refusal to seize based only on the current interpretation of Articles 112 and 149. This point is the subject of the previously introduced Seoul High Court decision 2008 No. 2778. We can say that it is also acknowledged in this case, but this interpretation goes beyond the current Article 112, and considering that it is linked to Article 149, which is also intended to preserve the intent of the attorney's right to refuse to testify, it is difficult to develop such an interpretation. In this case, the safest way would be to accept ACP and resolve it, and it is thought that the contents of the amendment and the directions for revision presented in prior studies started from this sense of problem. Considering these problematic points, it seems possible to include precautions for ACP in search and seizure warrants (providing execution guidelines or notifying the right to refuse seizure), establish guidelines that can clearly determine the significant public interest necessity in the reasons for refusing seizure, or actively reflect the contents of the communication between attorneys and clients in the quasi-appeal procedure. ACP is not for the convenience of individual lawyers, but is designed with the right to receive legal assistance and trust in the judicial system based on it in mind, so I think that harmonious operation with the discovery of the truth is possible within the scope of the current system regardless of whether ACP comes into effect. It is expected that the direction of the collection and use of evidence related to ACP in criminal cases should be reorganized so that administrative cases, civil cases, and cases involving in-house lawyers can be resolved.

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

The Attorney–Client Privilege constitutes an essential and widely recognized right in judicial systems worldwide, aiming to protect the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and their clients. However, there is no single understanding among jurisdictions on the scope of the privilege, which stems from different approaches between legal traditions as to the role of the lawyer within the judicial system. In adversarial systems, an attorney is an agent and zealous representative of their client, whereas inquisitorial systems consider the lawyer primarily an instrument to the administration of justice and the search for the truth. On this basis, while the US courts recognize the privilege for in-house lawyers, the European Court of Justice has refused such recognition holding that in-house lawyers are not sufficiently independent to safely fulfil their judicial functions. In an environment of increased international trade between the US and the EU it has become ever-more important to understand and scrutinize both approaches. Issues regarding legal professional privilege become increasingly complicated in cases with extraterritorial elements, where foreign interests rise as a crucial element in the assessment.

The article analyzes problematic issues of criminal law protection of attorney-client privilege, which is often used by its owners contrary to the interests of society and the state in the field of countering crimes of a terrorist nature and extremist orientation. The authors reveal the relevance of the issues under consideration; explore the content of the norms governing the institution of attorney-client privilege in Russia; based on the analysis of criminal legislation, they propose measures to improve it in this area.

The article critically analyses the provisions of Art. 7.1 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ “On Combating the Legalisation (Laundering) of Income...”, which oblige a number of persons, including advocates, to identify their client and monitor the movement of his funds in transactions. The authors point out the existing legal conflict due to different approaches to the interpretation of public duties, on the one hand, and the peculiarities of confidentiality relations that arise when exercising the right to receive qualified legal assistance, on the other hand. In the absence of a clear answer, there is nothing left but the personal discretion of each advocate on how to understand and fulfill the duties assigned by law and seek a reasonable balance of constitutionally protected values and competing rights. This is evidenced by the explanations of the authorized bodies.

In three previous articles, “Assessing Confidentiality in the Lawyer-Client Relationship: A Client Perspective” (2022a), “Avoiding Common Conflicts of Interest in the Lawyer-Client Relationship” (2022b), and “The Lawyer-Client Relationship: Fee Arbitration” (2022c), the authors have described various aspects of the lawyer-client relationship. In this article, the authors describe an important exception to the principle of confidentiality found in the crime-fraud doctrine which permits a court to breach lawyer-client confidentiality upon the proper showing.

Document exchange has become an almost inescapable component of international commercial arbitration, irrespective of the legal tradition of the lex arbitri, the lex causae, and the legal systems of the parties’ home countries. It is a legal transplant from the practice of litigation in international common law systems, which has developed into a transnational practice in arbitration. Although parties expect the attorney-client privilege, as an exception to the general disclosure obligations, to be protected within this practice, existing rules do not provide guidance on how to do so, and choice of law principles are unwieldy and yield troubling results. This article suggests that a wholesale importation of the broadest national rule of privilege connected to the case would be inconsistent with party expectations relative to the scope of privilege itself, the dimensions of the search for truth, and equal treatment. Rather, the international arbitration practice having evolved around discovery is akin to the results of a legal irritant in the lex arbitri and the practices around privilege should develop similarly. A transnational approach to privilege issues in such a case is best considered a procedural approach or solution: it would begin with the arbitral tribunal requesting submissions from both parties relative to the scope of document exchange and the parties’ proposals for application of attorney-client privilege. The main disadvantage of such a transnational approach is that the rules on privilege will not be known to the parties when a document is created or an act of communication takes place. Despite this drawback, the authors submit that this procedural approach is still the best available since it is the only approach that will be able to reconcile the conflict of laws with regard to privilege as it presents itself in the specific arbitration. It is their suggestion that the Privilege Task Force working on an instrument to deal with privilege in international arbitration will provide the arbitral tribunal with significant latitude to resolve the issue in the individual case before it.

No abstract available

With the publication of the Panama Papers in 2016, law firms and attorneys came under the spotlight of international anti-money laundering efforts. It became clear that attorneys, protected by the attorney-client privilege, play a significant role in concealing the origin of illicit funds and the constructing of offshore company-schemes. The public outcry prompted legislators to hold these facilitators accountable and to prevent money-laundering activities by imposing reporting obligation on them, whenever there is the suspicion of a client being involved in illicit activities. Unsurprisingly, attorney and professional associations voiced considerable opposition to these legislative efforts claiming an erosion of the attorney client privilege and nothing less than an attack on the rule of law. This article examines the attorney-client privilege from a historical, empirical, and constitutional perspective. A brief analysis of the legal frameworks in Germany and Switzerland exemplifies how reporting obligations affect legal practice and what challenges exist for attorneys. Both countries are considered global hubs for money laundering activities. The legal concepts of holding attorneys accountable in the neighboring countries differ in some respects. In conclusion, it shows that the legal professions successfully managed to widely avoid a ‘responsibilization’.

This article presents the legal framework of attorney-client privilege in Poland, indicating situations when an attorney is entitled or obliged to reveal information covered, in principle, by professional secrecy, as well as the consequences of an attorney’s erroneous evaluation in this regard. The author refers to provisions which require legal amendment or functional interpretation in order to guarantee respect for attorney-client privilege in legal proceedings, pointing out also controversial interpretations in court practice of what, in principle, are clear legal provisions relating to attorney duties. Finally, the poor perspective for changes in relevant field and the reasons for this are explained.

The authors analyze the theoretical and practical problems of protecting the attorney-client privilege in criminal proceedings in light of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The analysis of investigatory practice shows that violations of the attorney-client privilege are now quite a commonplace phenomenon. One of the ways of violating the attorney-client privilege widely used by the bodies of preliminary investigation is calling the attorney for interrogation, sometimes even using compelled attendance, and further interrogation. The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is that the attorney, the defense lawyer for the suspect, or for the accused or the person who received legal assistance, can only be interrogated under certain conditions stated in Art. 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Although the Constitutional Court provided quite clear guidance multiple times, some law enforcers often ignore them thus violating the rights of not only the attorneys, but also their clients and trustees. The current criminal procedure law does not provide a mechanism of protecting attorney’s work and the associated attorney-client privilege, which would exclude ungrounded calls for interrogation and interrogations of attorneys. The authors present suggestions on improving this law aimed at ensuring the protection of the attorney-client privilege.

The aim of the work is a systematic analysis of such an institution as the attorney-client privilege. The article analyzes the legal basis of the attorney-client privilege. In addition, gaps and contradictions in terms of securing the legal status of the attorney-client privilege are identified. Particular attention is paid to the characteristics of the attorney-client privilege as an element and manifestation of a lawyer's legal consciousness. Moreover, a significant place is given to the analysis of the limits of the attorney-client privilege.

No abstract available

Abstract: the article is devoted to a rather rare research focus of attorney‐client privilege – its civil law regime. The author focuses on the extremely low degree of scientific elaboration of the relevant issues in comparison with the criminal‐legal aspects of attorney‐client privilege in general and the inviolability of private life in particular. The article attempts to clarify the regulatory framework of the civil law regime of attorney‐client privilege. To this end, the author consistently examines the constitutional prere‐ quisites of the legal regime of legally protected secrecy, as well as the civil law regulation of privacy. The conclusion is made about the primacy of civil legislation in matters of legal regulation of the civil‐legal regime of attorney‐client privilege in terms of the regulation of intangible bene‐ fits in general and private life in particular. Attention is paid to regulato‐ ry legal acts regulating confidential information, personal data, as well as attorney‐client privilege directly. It has been found out that one of the determinants determining the existence of a lawyer's secret of a civil law regime is the emergence of a binding relationship between the lawyer and the principal, which determines the dissemination of the require‐ ments of paragraph 2 of Article 152.2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to the information that has become known in connection with the fulfillment of the obligation.

Organisations responding to cyber security incidents must manage their incident response efforts while maintaining two critical legal protections: the attorney–client privilege and the work product doctrine. This paper analyses how the attorney–client privilege and the work product doctrine, when properly maintained, prevent information regarding an organisation’s thoughts and discussions from being disclosed or used in subsequent proceedings. It discusses how recent judicial decisions analysing the application of these two doctrines have emphasised the importance of seemingly minor details that may be overlooked during incident response efforts that can have significant consequences in subsequent legal actions when asserting protections. In particular, courts will focus on the stated purpose for any step in the incident response process (eg business versus legal), and any discrepancies between the stated purpose and conduct can have disastrous effects on future claims of protection in legal proceedings. This paper puts forward that organisations should craft incident response plans with the maintenance of these protections in mind. Practical steps organisations can take include carefully scrutinising the language in retainer agreements, involving in-house or outside counsel at the earliest opportunity, limiting the disclosure of privileged materials, and exercising caution when documenting during incident response. After-the-fact attempts to shield the results of any investigation from opposing parties in litigation are rarely successful, so organisations should take affirmative steps to ensure the vitality of these two critical legal protections from the earliest stages of incident response, which start with the planning and preparation.

No abstract available

Opacity in the global financial system, exacerbated by tax evasion and money laundering, has prompted a shift toward transparency, often intersecting with client-attorney privilege (C-AP). While C-AP is a fundamental cornerstone of the rule of law and the right to privacy, tax authorities increasingly report its misuse to shield non-legal activities and aggressive tax avoidance. This article examines the tension between the public interest in tax transparency and the protection of legal confidentiality. Through comparative analysis of common and civil law jurisdictions and insights from international focus groups, the research identifies patterns of misuse, such as blanket privilege claims and the misrepresentation of commercial advice as legal. It evaluates the impact of mandatory disclosure rules (MDR) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations on traditional privilege boundaries. Ultimately, the author recommends good practices to prevent abuse while safeguarding genuine legal representation.

Client privilege and confidentiality are foundational to professional-client relationships, ensuring trust and candid communication. While legal frameworks, such as attorney-client privilege and psychotherapist confidentiality, codify these protections, they are also upheld by ethical standards across professions. This paper examines the evolution of client privilege, its legal and ethical dimensions, effective communication strategies, and the challenges professionals face in maintaining confidentiality. Addressing the nuances of privilege and confidentiality, the discussion highlights the importance of trust, transparency, and active listening in fostering strong client relationships while emphasizing the potential risks posed by breaches, technological developments, and competing obligations. Recommendations for training, adherence to best practices, and the ethical balancing of competing responsibilities are also examined. Keywords: Client privilege, confidentiality, professional ethics, communication strategies, trust, legal frameworks, therapeutic confidentiality.

No abstract available

When US government enforcement agencies investigate, they often require or pressure parties to waive the attorney-client and work product privileges, but there is no uniform standard regarding when demanding or requesting such waiver is appropriate. Deciding whether to advise your client to waive the privilege can be vexing for counsel. This paper reviews the waiver policies of US federal enforcement agencies overseeing the financial services industry, including the US Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as certain others. Further, it provides some guidance to parties and counsel regarding when waiver may be necessary or advisable. It concludes with support for a uniform standard that is protective of the attorney-client and work-product privileges, permitting the privilege holder to make a true choice as to whether to waive, free from any obligation or pressure to waive from US agencies.

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

<jats:p/>

No abstract available

National security and constitutionalism are often thought to be fundamentally incompatible. Recent reforms in Canada involve creative attempts to recognize constitutional rights to fair procedure within processes in which individuals' rights are in conflict with state security interests, such as security clearance, deportation, or access to information. The procedures examined in this article include in camera and ex parte review by Federal Court judges and the use of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The analysis draws on interviews with participants and compares these procedures with other situations in which restrictions upon open justice have faced Charter challenge, especially under sections 2(b) and 11(d). It is concluded that the courts have had comparatively little direct influence but, nevertheless, there is respect for constitutional values in some surprising places.