Government has still not made case for “inherently unfair” secret trials, say Special Advocates

14 June 2012 by

Angus McCullough QC and Jeremy Johnson QC at the JCHR

The overwhelming majority of Special Advocates have responded to the Justice and Security Bill by stating that the case has still not been made by the Government for the introduction of closed material procedures  in other types of civil litigation. The full response is available here (PDF).

Fifty Special Advocates have signed the response. This represents an overwhelming consensus of those with substantial experience of the current system of secret hearings.

They accept that the new restriction to national security cases is an improvement, but retain the view expressed in their initial response to the Green Paper consultation, that:

CMPs are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition; that the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction; that no such reasons have been advanced; and that, in our view, none exists.

The response is particularly interesting in relation to the Government’s claims, supported explicitly by Ken Clarke before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that under the revised plans the final decision of whether to hold a secret hearing would be made by a judge. Rather

… the Bill requires the judge to accede to the Government’s application for a CMP if there is any material disclosure of which would damage national security, even if the judge considers that the case could and should be fairly tried under existing public interest immunity (PII) rules and there is no need for a CMP.

In summary, the Special Advocates respond as follows:

As Special Advocates appointed to act in closed proceedings under existing regimes, we would respond to the published Bill as follows:

2.1 While we can see reasons for the proposal to add naturalisation and exclusion cases to the existing jurisdiction of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), we remain of the view that the case has not been made for the introduction of closed material procedures (CMPs) in other types of civil litigation.

2.2 There is one respect in which the Bill represents an improvement on the proposals in the Green Paper – the restriction of the scope of CMPs to national security cases only.

However, contrary to the assurance given by the Lord Chancellor in the Foreword to the Response, the Bill does not ensure that the decision to trigger a CMP “can only be taken where evidence a [CMP] is needed on national security grounds is found to be persuasive by a judge”.

2.4 Instead, the Bill requires the judge to accede to the Government’s application for a CMP if there is any material disclosure of which would damage national security, even if the judge considers that the case could and should be fairly tried under existing public interest immunity (PII) rules and there is no need for a CMP.

2.5 The Bill would remove the availability of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction not just in cases where disclosure is sought of information obtained in confidence from the intelligence service of another state, but also in a much wider category of cases. No sufficient justification has been advanced for such a broad exclusion of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction and, in our view, none exists.

The full response can be found here (PDF) or embedded using Scribd underneath the links below.

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

Read more:

View this document on Scribd

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: