Friday's Supreme Court decision to allow this newspaper to report a leaked Cabinet memorandum has thrown the often misunderstood concept of Cabinet collective responsibility into sharp relief.

Earlier this year, former Premier Sir John Swan, who, coincidentally, had a connection to last week's proposal, said in a column in this newspaper: "This principle of collective responsibility goes hand in hand with the notion that Cabinet and Cabinet Committee proceedings must remain secret so that Ministers can consult freely among themselves, unrestrained by any concern that differences or disagreements can even become public knowledge.

"So long as a Minister remains a Minister, he may not speak in public or in private against any decision of the Cabinet or against any individual decision of another Minister."

The principle is extended one step further. If a Minister cannot support a decision in good conscience, they are obliged to resign.

Still, the principle of confidentiality is not absolute. A person wishing to make public secret information that is before the Cabinet can do so if it can be shown that the public interest in the information being disclosed is greater than the public benefit in maintaining the principle of Cabinet confidentiality.

This, essentially, was this newspaper's argument; that the public had a right to know that the Government was contemplating a $25 million property purchase on its behalf. That the bulk of the funds would be borrowed at a time when the Island is in recession and the Government is already operating at a record deficit added to the importance of the issue. But there are arguments in favour of the purchase as well. What this newspaper believed was that the public had the right to know about it.

Of course, it can be and was argued that the public would get to debate the matter if it was agreed to by Cabinet and an order authorising the purchase was presented to Parliament for approval. This is correct, but the reality is that the system of Cabinet governance in a small Parliament means that a Cabinet decision often sails to approval through the governing party's caucus because the Cabinet very nearly has a majority there. And once approved by the governing party, it is almost certain to be approved by Parliament because the governing party has a majority. So the idea that public debate is timely after Cabinet approval is somewhat nebulous, although there have been notable exceptions when bills have been defeated or policies reversed. The cruise ship gambling bill is one such example.

This newspaper also argued that what was before the Cabinet was not a Cabinet decision but merely a proposal, and there is often wide knowledge of Cabinet proposals. Further, the memorandum did not deal with questions of national security or pre-Budget financial decisions where the public interest could arguably be served by the maintenance of confidentiality.

Nonetheless, Mr. Justice Bell very nearly rejected publication of the memorandum on the basis that it indicated the positions of both Works Minister Derrick Burgess (for) and, more critically, Finance Minister Paula Cox (against) concerning the purchase and there was strong legal precedent to show that these principles are compelling reasons to maintain secrecy.

Going from a proposal before Cabinet to reporting on their positions was a step too far under the law, and Mr. Justice Bell indicated that in the circumstances that would have been enough for him to block publication. But the fact that even as the decision was being made there was a news report, albeit one that was not fully accurate, on the subject of Government buying office buildings meant the issue was already in the public domain, and the injunction against this newspaper pointless. So Mr. Justice Bell ruled in favour of publication.

Still, it does throw some doubt onto the whole concept of collective responsibility. Is it really so bad that the public should know about property purchases and legislative initiatives before Cabinet decides upon them? In fact, Cabinet often makes such initiatives public. And is it so bad that the public now knows where Ms Cox's Ministry stands on the question of buying Sir John's building? In the current circumstances, it might actually improve Government's standing in Bermuda and in the global financial community to know some financial restraint is being exercised. It may even be that a Minister can quite easily oppose a proposal publicly but abide by the majority or consensus opinion once the decision is made.

In fact, the principle of Cabinet secrecy tends to pervade the whole system of governance in the Westminster system and to deter efforts at transparency and open government. It may be time to look again at the whole culture of secrecy and to see if there is a better way.