IT WAS George Bernard Shaw who said "all professions are a conspiracy against the laity" and nowhere is this conspiracy more apparent than in the quasi- judicial bodies that control entry and discipline for many professions.

Organisations like the Medical Council, the Veterinary Council or the Law Society have great powers, which have been devolved to them from the High Court. They can ask the High Court to subpoena witnesses and have even demanded that journalists reveal sources.

However, unlike the High Court they can and do sit, as a rule, in private. In the case of the gentlemanly professions, the rule is that everything is done behind closed doors.

For the rest of us, of course, any hearings about our employment are held in public either in court or at a tribunal.

The decision of the Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Committee to hear the case against Dr Moira Woods in public is a first. The committee also initially made the unusual decision to limit media access to two journalists.

If it is open, it is open to both press and public and must offer reasonable accommodation for both. A court cannot put an unreasonable limit on who can and cannot attend.

The idea that justice should be open, that it be administered on behalf of the public and that the public have the right to attend, is not something dreamt up by news editors seeking good news stories. It is a constitutional right.

Rulings have shown that the Supreme Court does not believe the public has to attend, but it can have public knowledge of the proceedings. The public, and by extension the press, can only be excluded when it can be shown that a public hearing is likely to be a denial of justice.

"Because they perform a vital public function, court reporters should be viewed as a positive rather than a negative force," said Ms Marie McGonagle, in her work A Textbook on Media Law.

The parents, who are the complainants in this case, want the hearing open. Dr Woods, it is believed, might now have problems with some of her witnesses, who are social workers. They might now find it difficult to give evidence that might compromise their clients' confidentiality.

They could have reasonably thought that they would be giving evidence in private, going on past experience.

Tribunals, hearings or other semi-judicial bodies should be required to be open as a rule. They should understand that the watch-dog role of the press is a well-founded one and that there is a body of jurisprudence out of institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights that upholds the concept and has developed it.

Obviously many such bodies deal in very sensitive issues. Courts have found ways to ensure that within a general rule of justice being seen to be administered in public certain sensitive cases can either be held in camera, such as family cases, or with reporting restrictions to ensure the anonymity of certain people, such as the victims of rape.

However, a court cannot simply announce it will be held in camera. Judges must justify their decisions and must do so with reference to statute.

The public interest cannot be served if important functions in society are totally self-regulated, outside the public gaze. Openness in a democracy should be central. There is another reason all justice, whether for doctors, dentists, vets or lawyers, should be in public. Publicity is a deterrent in itself. The embezzling solicitor or the careless doctor might think twice if his or her bad behaviour was to be scrutinised in public.

The Medical Council has opened the door, and it will never be able to close it again. It and other bodies should now seek changes in the legislation that established them. All should be open where there is a public interest at stake.

Absolute privilege, which protects journalists from defamation, should be extended to such bodies.

There is a growing unease about self-regulating bodies meeting in private and making decisions about issues that are well and truly in the public interest.

Rather than allow a little openness, all such bodies should as a rule be open to the public, if the issues at stake are such that a major penalty can be imposed. Secret hearings must become the exception.