The Independent View: National security is paramount but ‘secret courts’ are an illiberal attack on British justice

Supreme Court - Some rights reserved by cphoffman42In September 2012, the Liberal Democrat Conference voted overwhelmingly against the most contentious aspect of the government’s Justice and Security Bill – the extension of ‘secret courts’, otherwise known as Closed Material Procedures (CMPs), into civil courts.

This would allow ministers to submit a CMP application to a judge that material relating to national security be withheld from the defendant/claimant and their legal team despite being used as evidence. As Andrew Tyrie MP and Anthony Peto QC explain in “Neither Just nor Secure”, published today by the Centre for Policy Studies, this is worrying because “in an adversarial system such as the English one, the right to know and challenge the opposing case is not merely a feature of the system, it is the system”.

The Conference vote came against the wishes of Lib Dem Party leaders including Nick Clegg, and although the Deputy Prime Minister has previously expressed some hesitancy over the plans, indications are that the Parliamentary Party is prepared to accept the Bill following the House of Lords amendments made in December.

While these amendments go some way to addressing the unacceptable nature of the Bill’s CMP proposals, they do not go far enough and an amendment withdrawing the relevant part of the Bill in its entirety was rejected.

The extension of CMPs into civil courts puts at risk two fundamental elements of the common law justice system, the right to a fair hearing (natural justice) and open justice – the principle that a case be heard and decided in public. Though the vast majority of people would recognise the government’s necessity to maintain secrets that would threaten national security, the broad scope of allowing CMPs in civil cases means the potential for great misuse in the future. Parliament’s Joint Human Rights Committee commented:

After listening to the evidence of the special advocates [specially-trained representatives appointed by the government to represent the defendant or claimant’s interest], we found it hard not to reach for well-worn descriptions of it as ‘Kafkaesque’ or like the Star Chamber.”

To combat the illiberal aspects of the CMP proposals, Tyrie and Peto suggest several further amendments:

  • CMPs must be a last resort; a judge should have to exhaust the possible use of current “Public Interest Immunity” powers before considering the use of a CMP.
  • Even where a CMP is approved, the judge should be able to balance the interests of justice against those of national security in deciding if information should be disclosed.
  • Where CMP is used, summaries of the national security sensitive information should be provided to the excluded party and his or her legal representatives.
  • A sunset clause should be incorporated so that the legislation is limited to five years, unless new legislation is passed to renew it.

The Liberal Democrats should welcome this report from a senior Conservative backbencher and are in a unique position to force through these vital amendments to the bill. They should not pretend that the current Lords’ amendments are sufficient. It is an opportunity to demonstrate that Lib Dem leadership can really count in the Coalition.

* Lewis James Brown is the Digital Communications Manager at the Centre for Policy Studies.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in The Independent View.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32920 for Twitter and emails.

3 Comments

  • I don’t see why a heavy amount of redacting wouldn’t suffice for most cases. However, if there was a case where any evidence / witnesses would have their lives put in danger, than of course they should be, wherever possible, held in secret.

  • So, in other words, you will continue to ignore the Conference vote. Nice.

    I think you should kick out Clegg. Perhaps his successor will actually listen to the party members.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarLiberal Al 26th Jul - 1:53pm
    @Eddie, with the compulsion to ensure Landlords make their home efficient, that will only help the poor. Right now, poorer individuals in most cities (especially...
  • User Avatarbcrombie 26th Jul - 12:51pm
    Joe Otten I think it is you who needs to produce 'evidence' based on the discussion above There has been a volte-face in policy so...
  • User AvatarPeter Chivall 26th Jul - 12:50pm
    Richard Dean poses a number of questions above. When Labour created the Connexions system out of the County Careers Advice services in 2002 they specified...
  • User AvatarJoe Otten 26th Jul - 12:33pm
    Only just spotted this Chris. Any or all relevant evidence. I would never imply such a proflific commenter as you would not wish to respond...
  • User Avatarpaul barker 26th Jul - 12:31pm
    While recognising that the Party has to protect itself against Legal Action this all looks terrible.The resignation of some of the members involved now seems...
  • User AvatarDavid Evershed 26th Jul - 12:26pm
    Either expelling or not expelling Lord Rennard from the party is going to upset some (different) part of the membership. Further prevarication will be even...