Court of Appeal launches offensive against secret justice with three linked judgments

5 May 2010 by

 

 

 

 

 

… but not too blind

Home Office v Tariq [2010] EWCA Civ 462  – Read judgmentBank Mellat v HM Treasury [2010] EWCA Civ 483 – Read judgment

[Updated 7/5/10]

The Court of Appeal has told the Government three times in 24 hours that it cannot keep evidence secret in civil proceedings. Similar reasoning was applied in three different contexts; the employment tribunal, a case relating to Iranian nuclear proliferation and a claim for damages for foreign torture.

An identically constituted court as in the Al-Rawi and others judgment had already held on the same day that evidence in a high-profile torture compensation claim should not be kept entirely secret.

In two further decisions, the same judges held that the Treasury must give sufficient disclosure to allow a bank accused of involvement in Iranian nuclear proliferation to not just deny but refute the allegations (Bank Mellat v HM Treasury), and that the Home Office must provide the “gist” of material it had wanted to keep secret from an employment tribunal (Home Office v Tariq). The court did not, however, go as far as saying that evidence can never be kept secret in cases involving national security.

All three cases revolve around the controversial “closed material procedure“, which allows certain evidence to be kept from the public and sometimes a defendant, and the use of “special advocates” (SA). As the Court of Appeal said in para 1 of the judgment, these procedures, developed as part of the fight against terrorism, represent “exceptions to the fundamental principle of open justice.” We have posted about the issues surrounding the special advocate system in relation to control orders (read post).

The cases higlight the strong line the courts have taken towards open justice since the AF case in 2009, a criminal matter in which the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) held that it was a breach of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 to hold someone under a control order without sufficient information about the allegations against him even where disclosure would compromise the country‚Äôs national security (read our case comment).

Tariq – secret evidence in employment tribunals

Mr Tariq was a home office immigration officer who was suspended in 2006 due to national security concerns. He is suing the Home Office in the Employment Tribunal.

The questions before the court in this case were, first, whether an Employment Tribunal has the power to order a closed material procedure. This has already been denied to the Government in a claim for civil damages in Al-Rawi. If the answer was yes, then the second issue was whether Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No.3) [2009] UKHL 28 applies in this context so as to require the Home Office to provide a gist of the closed material upon which it seeks to rely to the employee and his legal representatives.

In answer to the first question, the court ruled that the EAT could order a closed material procedure, as whilst it is “anomalous” , the system “permits [special advocates] to do their work effectively and independently and subjects them to proper scrutiny“. Lord Justice Maurice Kay continued that the special advocates system did not in and of itself breach the claimant’s Article 6 ECHR rights, and that “if such problems were evident they would be expected to provoke adverse judicial comment but, in my experience, the system, although inherently imperfect, enjoys a high degree of confidence among the judges who deal with cases of this kind on a regular basis” (para 32).

The second question was whether the Home Office had to disclose the “gist” of the case to the claimant.

The Home Office argued that AF was different to the present case, as that had involved control orders and the deprivation of liberty, whereas this involved a claimant seeking to enforce his private right not to be subjected to discrimination. It was argued that as  the context was not one in which the State is seeking to interfere with Mr Tariq’s liberty or anything comparable, and as the authorities do not insist on disclosure in all circumstances, AF simply did not apply.

The court rejected this reasoning, stating at para 50:

“… the present case is not put in a different category by the fact that the Secretary of State is not seeking to subject Mr Tariq to a control order but is simply defending a discrimination claim. Nor is it to the point that the ultimate issue is discrimination rather than the accuracy of the closed material. The fact is that the Home Office is seeking to rely on closed material in its defence. Whilst the Rules permit that, it seems to me that the principle illustrated by AF(No.3) must apply to ensure that fairness to which Mr Tariq is entitled by Article 6 and at common law…. For present purposes, I am satisfied that the judgment of the EAT was correct on this point and that the appeal of the Home Office should be dismissed.

More to come

It is unlikely that the secret evidence sage will end here, as the path is open for the cases to be appealed to the Supreme Court. This seems likely, given reports that the quest for increased openness is giving security services the jitters.

Read more:

  • Update 7/5/10 – The Panopticon Information Law Blog comments on the three decisions: “What these judgments show collectively is just how difficult it is to strike a fair balance between the important public interest in protecting the basic rights of individuals to know what case is being put against them and the need to avoid disclosures which would themselves damage the public interest, for example, by jeopardizing national security.”
  • Update 5/5/10 The Times commentary on the Binyam Mohamed decision

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: