Bureaucracy, national security and access to justice. New light on Duncan v Cammell Laird

The conventional view of 'Duncan v Cammell Laird' was succinctly expressed by Wade and Forsyth. "The case", they wrole: "is a good example of the most genuine type where it seems plain that the interests of litigants must be sacrificed in order to preserve secrets of state." To Zuckerman Duncan was "the most outstanding" example of a rare number of cases genuinely involving national security. These, along with almost all other commentators, argue that national security considerations meant that the
1942 decision was on its facts pretty well inevitable and probably correct. This article suggests thal the view that the plaintiffs had to take second place to the greater good of keeping Germany in ignorance of British naval secrets
perpetuates a myth. This myth was fostered by civil sewice lawyers in the interesis of litigation management by the Crown. The case papers tell a different story.