Time to throw an anvil at secret courts

Next Tuesday, which is both my nephew’s 14th birthday and the 32nd anniversary of the founding of the SDP, the Justice and Security Bill comes back to the House of Lords for consideration. Now, my esteemed colleague Mr Valladares has given a very helpful account of what the Lords can and can’t do. He goes on to suggest that the Upper House will often back down in the face of pressure from the elected Chamber.

If ever, though, there was a time for the peers to kick off, it is now, when the right to a fair trial remedy for those who have been tortured or otherwise wronged by the state is being threatened. This is what I said in my speech to Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference last week:

 …if you torture me and I sue you and you file a defence that I can’t see, how am I supposed to tell the Judge that you are talking hogwash?

And when the Judge makes a ruling against me, which I also am not allowed to see, how am I supposed to know what my grounds for appeal are?

Mike Crockart and Julian Huppert have worked really hard on this Bill. They spent days on Committee trying to change it. They moved a vote to delete the secret courts provision and lost by one vote. But even all their hard work wasn’t enough. Mike and Julian did not think that there were sufficient safeguards in the Bill for them and they voted against it last week.

The fundamental principle behind the secret courts provision is so fundamentally wrong that it is impossible to amend it to make it acceptable. I think the best you can say is that they’ve turned it from a cowp to a midden.

There are some things that you just can’t polish. This Bill should never have seen the light of day and certainly not with a Liberal Democrat’s name on it.

Over the next few days, I think we should all contact as many peers as we can and ask them to do whatever they can to keep this Bill from becoming law, to amend the amendments in such a way as to keep the Bill going back and fore between both Houses until it simply runs out of time before the end of the session or the Government can be persuaded to withdraw it. Our civil liberties are worth protecting.

James Carville, brilliant and slightly eccentric Democrat strategist who masterminded Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns, once said:

When your opponent is drowning, throw the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) an anvil.

Similarly, when a bad piece of legislation is drowning in the currents between two Houses of Parliament, throw it an anvil, not a life jacket.

Let’s spend the weekend filling their inboxes with short, well-argued pleas to find some way of sparing us the effects of this Bill. Liberal Democrat Peers are listed here and crossbench peers are listed here. Remind them that it’s totally counter-intuitive for us as a party to be on a different side to Liberty, Reprieve, Amnesty.  Remind them that human rights lawyers and the special advocates themselves oppose the bill and the Joint Committee on Human Rights is still not satisfied with the Bill.

If you agree with me that this Bill is entirely wrong in principle, get those anvils poised and ready to throw. Still not convinced? Read this by David Howarth, former MP for Cambridge.

Consider, for example, the torts of assault and battery and false imprisonment, torts on which our freedom from state oppression are built. The defences to these torts include necessity and self-defence. Those are precisely the defences that would be in issue in the most profound and difficult of cases, for example a torture and ticking time-bomb case or a case of holding a potential terrorist’s family as hostages. Are we really to have secret precedents in these areas of law? The very thought should make any liberal, or indeed anyone who believes in the rule of law, shudder.

* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

7 Comments

  • Kevin McNamara 21st Mar '13 - 9:00pm

    too right, caron.

  • Robert Bleakley 21st Mar '13 - 9:44pm

    I fully agree Caron

  • There are vigorous debates going on over what to do with the Commons amendments. But don’t think the Lords can stop the Bill going through at all, with or without further amendments. That is most unlikely to happen.

    Tony Greaves

  • Jo Shaw rang Call Clegg this morning to ask why the Lords were being whipped to support secret courts.

  • David Howarth did suggest on another thread that various options were open to the Lords, and that he would be happy to advise. I hope someone has taken him up on that offer, as he has talked more sense on this issue than anyone else I can think of.

  • Richard Wingfield 22nd Mar '13 - 11:28am

    I see this morning that Lord Beecham (Labour), Lord MacDonald (Lib Dem) and Lord Marks (Lib Dem) have tabled some very sensible amendments to the House of Commons version of the Bill here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0088/amend/am088-a.htm

    There is no reason why Lib Dem peers should not support such amendments given that they are consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and would make the Bill less odious, particular by ensuring that:

    – CMPs are only ever made when “a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means”;
    – CMPs cannot be made unless “the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the material is disclosed would be likely to outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice”;
    – the CMP procedure provisions of the Bill would lapse automatically after four years unless both Houses of Parliament voted to continue them.

  • I for one, having read Tom McNally’s recent piece on this, am concerned about over-simplification of what in reality seems a complex and difficult subject. Hence I am attending a special meeting of the Lib Dem Lawyers Association on Monday evening 6.30pm at the National Liberal Club to hear a detailed discussion on the subject of the Justice & Security Bill. There may still be places available – from Graham Colley chair@libdemlawyers.org.uk

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDenis Loretto 17th Oct - 1:04am
    @Martin I am only too well aware of the lack of any viable idea as to a way forward for the Irish border. What I...
  • User AvatarGlenn 17th Oct - 12:58am
    Frankie. I'm just pointing out the irony of these kinds of youth and internationalist orientated arguments . I don't see Brexit a cliff edge. I...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 17th Oct - 12:33am
    Lorenzo is right to remind everyone of the diversity of reasons which caused people to vote Leave, but it follows that there are no easy...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 16th Oct - 11:58pm
    You are right, Martin, I believe - the Irish Border question does not look capable of a ready solution, despite the fact that the finances...
  • User AvatarMerseyLib 16th Oct - 11:33pm
    One of the very few things I have in common with Jeremy Corbyn is that I've opposed every single "anti-terrorism" legislation since the 80s. Not...
  • User Avatarfrankie 16th Oct - 11:18pm
    Peter, You'd be surprised more poverty means more rough sleepers, he would have more competition and hard as his life is it would get worse....