Application for transcript of case — non-party to proceedings — District Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, rr 8, 11 — Harassment Act 1997 — Official Information Act 1982. The plaintiff sought the transcript to a proceeding he was not party to: namely a Harassment Act proceeding between Mr Saleh and a member of the police. In the proceeding in question, Mr Saleh had filed an application for a restraining order under the Harassment Act, one of several legal proceedings the defendant had engaged in relating to the Police. He was held in contempt and later apologised and was released. The plaintiff was present in Court that day and said he had difficulty hearing. The plaintiff then filed an application for a transcript. The Judge noted the application must be dealt with under the District Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules. As the plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings, the Judge first considered rule 8, which states that every person has the right to the formal Court record relating to civil proceedings. The formal Court record is defined, however, and does not include a transcript of a hearing. Further, the plaintiff wanted his application to cover the contempt; however, there are no charging documents in relation to contempt. The Judge then considered rule 11. For rule 11 to be satisfied, the request must be in writing, the person making the request must be fully identified (including providing a residential address), and the request must set out the particulars of the document so the registrar can identify it. All of these requirements had been complied with. Additionally, reasons must be given as to why the plaintiff thinks he should get it and for what purpose he wants it. Here the plaintiff stated he wanted it to ensure that he had an accurate record of what was said, as he believes the defendant, Mr Saleh, has been treated poorly by the justice system. Finally, the Judge had to decide if there were any conditions to be placed on the right of access. Rule 9 notes the Judge must consider the confidentiality and privacy interests of the parties. The Judge held that there were no privacy concerns and the transcript could be released to the plaintiff, on the condition that the transcript cannot be published in any media and that a copy of it cannot be provided to anyone else. If the plaintiff wished for that condition to be reviewed, he would have to make a formal written application. Judgment Date: 27 February 2018.