More secret justice on the horizon

19 October 2011 by

The Cabinet Office has released its long awaited (by this blog at least) Justice and Security Green Paper, addressing the difficult question of to what extent the state must reveal secret information in court proceedings. A consultation has been launched on the proposals; responses can be sent via email by Friday 6 January 2012.

The review was announced shortly after the Coalition Government came to power, on the same day that Sir Peter Gibson’s Detainee Inquiry was launched. In summary, the Government has recommended that controversial Closed Material Procedures and Special Advocates are used more frequently, particularly in civil proceedings. The courts have been reluctant to take this step themselves as any expansion of secret procedures will have significant effects on open justice and the right to a fair trial.

The Green Paper begins by setting out the familiar tension between protecting national security, by ensuring that sensitive information is not revealed to the wrong people, and upholding the right of people to know the case against them in court. This tension has resulted in a number of recent court decisions in which courts have often ruled against the security services in respect of disclosure – see our most recent post on the issue.

This has meant that the courts repeatedly required the Government to disclose secret documents, meaning that the Government has been forced to settle claims in order to prevent public revelation of the documents – most notably in the Binyam Mohammed (pictured) litigation which was eventually settled for millions of pounds, The current state of the law, as put by the Justice Secretary in his Forward:

has rendered the UK justice system unable to pass judgment on these vital matters: cases either collapse, or are settled without a judge reaching any conclusion on the facts before them.

The Government has therefore made the following recommendations:

  • Introducing legislation to make closed material procedures (CMPs) more widely available in civil proceedings for use in rare instances in which sensitive material is relevant to the case. CMPs, which involve Special Advocates, are highly controversial (see half-way down this post) and the Supreme Court has recently suggested that it is for Parliament to decide whether such procedures should be used in civil (as opposed to criminal) proceedings. As Rosalind pointed out in her post, the European Court of Human Rights is not inherently opposed to such proceedings as long as they are strictly necessary.
  • Seeking people’s views on the difficult issue of CMPs in inquests, which are after all supposed to be a public process whereby rumours about the circumstances surrounding deaths can be allayed in public.
  • Improving mechanisms by which Special Advocates, who are “critical to the success of the proposed expansion of CMPs” communicate with the person who they are representing.
  • Clarify the contexts in which the ‘AF (No.3)’ ‘gisting’ requirement does not apply. In AF, the House of Lords ruled that in order to guarantee a fair hearing under article 6 of the European Convention the judge must insist in every case that the controlled person is given sufficient information to enable his special advocate effectively to challenge the case that is brought against him. It sounds here like the Government are seeking to reduce to the bare minimum the instances where such “gisting” is required.
  • The Government has also suggested various procedural reforms in order to manage the expansion of CMPs, including providing judges with more active case management powers in the pre-hearing
phase to replicate best practice from more ‘inquisitorial’-type proceedings, establishing a ‘specialist’ court with appropriate safeguards to hear civil proceedings where sensitive material is relevant prospects for reform of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT).
  • Limit the role of the courts in cases in which individuals are seeking disclosure of sensitive material, where the Government is not otherwise a
party, particularly into foreign legal proceedings over which we have no control.

There are also aspects of the consultation aimed at increasing public confidence in oversight of the security and intelligence agencies. This perhaps represents an implicit acceptance that the expansion of CMPs and the use of Special Advocates could decrease public confidence in the oversight of intelligence services with less damaging disclosure reaching the public eye.

This debate is extremely important and the courts have found it difficult to resolve in recent years. Judges have undoubtedly become bolder following the passing of the Human Rights Act in 2000, which has been at the heart of all of the most significant cases. But judges have also been concerned (most famously Lord Neuberger, who even changed a paragraph of his critical judgement at the request of the security services) at what the disclosure of some documents has revealed about the actions of the security services, concerns which led directly to the Detainee Inquiry.

It is interesting that the Ministry of Justice has said that the proposals will ensure

that the sensitivity of evidence does not prevent cases being heard in the courts – enabling justice to be done without compromising national security.

But, as has been pointed out by Liberty, some cases which would have reached the courts under the old system may be taken out of the public gaze by the new.

It is right that Parliament make the final decision as to where the right balance between justice and security lies. It is to be hoped that the answer it reaches will not place those two fundamental principles in opposition to each other.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: