MoJ Orders Deletion of Courtsdesk Court Reporting Archive

MoJ orders deletion of Courtsdesk court reporting archive: what happened, and why it matters

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has ordered the deletion of a court reporting archive held by Courtsdesk, a data analysis company whose platform has been used by professional investigators,  journalists and campaigners to monitor activity in the civil and criminal courts. The decision has prompted fresh debate about open justice (the principle that courts should be observable and accountable) and how that principle sits alongside data protection obligations.

What is Courtsdesk, and what was it doing?

Courtsdesk describes itself as a tool that helps monitor court records. According to the reporting, the project was approved in 2021 as a pilot to explore how a “national digital news feed of listings and registers” could improve court coverage by the news media.

Courtsdesk says its platform was used by more than 1,500 journalists from 39 media organisations, and that the data it collected highlighted major gaps in how court hearings are listed and communicated to the press.

It is also worth noting that court listing and outcome information can be relevant beyond journalism. Where it is lawful, relevant and proportionate, professionals such as investigators may use court-related information as part of due diligence and background enquiries – for example, to help verify whether proceedings are scheduled or to corroborate information that may be material to a risk assessment.

The core claim: journalists weren’t being told about large volumes of hearings

A key part of the story is Courtsdesk’s analysis of the data it had access to. The headline figures attributed to its research include:

• 1.6 million criminal hearings with no advance notice to journalists
• Court listings accurate on only 4.2% of sitting days
• Around half a million weekend cases heard with no notification to the press
• Two-thirds of courts routinely hearing cases without advance notice, with some courts allegedly never publishing advance listings during the period measured

Those claims are significant because they go to a practical question at the heart of open justice: how can the public scrutinise proceedings if the press (and therefore the public) doesn’t know a hearing is happening?

Why open justice is such a big deal

“Open justice” is a long-standing constitutional principle in the UK. The judiciary’s own guidance describes open justice as being “at the heart of our system of justice and vital to the rule of law.”

Courts have repeatedly emphasised why it matters: public hearings help guard against unfairness and maintain confidence in justice by allowing scrutiny of what courts are doing.

The MoJ itself has also framed open justice as fundamental, noting that “justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done,” while exploring how that principle should work in a modern, increasingly digital court system.

So when any tool or dataset is presented as improving visibility of the courts – and is then shut down – it’s unsurprising that journalists and some politicians raise concerns about transparency.

The government’s position: a “data protection issue” and “unauthorised sharing”

The article reports that in November HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) issued Courtsdesk with a cessation notice, citing what it called “unauthorised sharing” of court data linked to a test feature, and describing this as a data protection issue. Courtsdesk says it asked for the issue to be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but that no referral was made.

The MoJ then issued a final refusal, with the result that the archive must be deleted within days.

HMCTS, for its part, is quoted as saying that the press “always had and would retain full access to information from the courts to ensure accurate reporting,” and that it would take appropriate action to safeguard personal data processing. When asked what the specific data protection issues were, the department did not comment (as reported).

It’s worth adding a practical point here: HMCTS already publishes guidance on supporting media access, including what information can be provided to accredited journalists and the conditions around retention of “media lists.”

As things stand, there has been no public comment reported from the ICO in response to Courtsdesk’s request for referral and clarification.

If listings are public, why is data protection being cited?

A common question raised by this story is how data protection concerns apply when many court hearings, listings and outcomes are displayed and listed publicly.

One important distinction is that “publicly available” does not automatically mean “free to collect, combine, republish and retain indefinitely” in a searchable archive. Court lists and registers can include personal data, and compliance concerns often turn on how that information is processed at scale: who can access it, how long it is kept, whether it is shared onward, and what safeguards exist to reduce the risk of harm, especially in sensitive matters.

This is the balancing act at the centre of the dispute: protecting personal data while still enabling practical transparency.

Why the “delete the archive” part is what’s catching attention

If the dispute were only about whether a pilot should continue, it might have stayed niche. The thing that has widened interest is the reported instruction to delete the archive – not just stop the service.

From a neutral governance perspective, deletion can be the right outcome in some situations (for example, if data is being processed unlawfully, or kept longer than necessary). UK GDPR includes concepts like storage limitation and, for individuals, the “right to erasure” in certain circumstances.

But deletion is also irreversible: once records are gone, so is the ability to analyse patterns over time – including the kind of system-performance claims Courtsdesk has made. That is why this is being framed as more than a technical compliance decision.

Why it matters to solicitors and legal support providers

Even if you’re not involved in court reporting, there are a few clear takeaways for the wider legal ecosystem.

1. Court information quality affects real work.
   If listings are wrong or issued late, it creates knock-on effects for case preparation, witness availability, logistics, and urgent instructions. Courtsdesk’s headline claim is essentially that “what’s scheduled” and “what actually happens” can diverge at scale – and that’s operationally meaningful for anyone supporting litigation.

2. Transparency increasingly depends on systems, not just public galleries.
   The MoJ has openly explored what open justice should look like in a digital era – because “walk into the courtroom” doesn’t map neatly onto modern court operations and remote or fast-moving lists.

3. Data protection is part of legitimacy.
   For organisations that handle sensitive personal data – whether courts, media, or suppliers working with law firms – being able to demonstrate a lawful basis for processing and sensible retention controls matters. That includes companies like Tremark where our professionalism includes not only outcomes but also how information is handled.

4. Due diligence and background enquiries still rely on reliable, lawful sources.
   For clients carrying out due diligence, it can be important to verify information against reputable sources, including court-related information where it is lawful, relevant and proportionate to do so. Where appropriate, Tremark can support clients with background enquiries and due diligence checks, including helping to identify and gather relevant court-related information through professional, lawful routes, and handling any personal data in line with data protection expectations.

What happens next?

At the time of the reporting cited above, the stated position is that the archive must be deleted within days, while the broader debate – open justice versus data protection, and who should be permitted to hold and analyse court data – continues.

Can Tremark still access court listing and register information?

Yes. Even if access to the Courtsdesk platform and its archive is being removed, the underlying court listing and register information has not “disappeared”. Where it is relevant, lawful and proportionate, this information can still be gathered through established professional routes, including alternative providers.

Tremark can still carry out court-related checks as part of due diligence and background enquiries, and we do so in a way that is documented and defensible. That means we can (where appropriate) identify relevant listings/outcomes, record what was searched and when, and handle any personal data in line with data protection expectations.