Justice and Security Bill: no balance, no public interest – Lawrence McNamara

30 January 2013 by

Justice and SecurityThe government’s Justice and Security Bill has this week entered a new phase of debate in the House of Commons as it is considered in detail by a 19-member Public Bill Committee over the next month.  The critics of this Bill – and there are many – argue that it will make “secret justice” a standard part of our legal process.  The latest set of amendments proposed by the government were revealed yesterday and within them lies a crucial and unjustifiable secrecy provision.  The significance of the amendments becomes apparent when one looks at how the Bill has progressed so far.  

In its original form the Bill said that a court “must” use closed material proceedings if there would be a disclosure of information that would harm national security interests.  It would not matter how small the damage, it would not matter whether there were other public interests in disclosure of the material, and the court had no discretion.

The Lords changed this provision.  As well as turning “must” into “may” so that the court would have discretion, they inserted a balancing principle.  If closed material proceedings were to be used then some further conditions must be satisfied. Notably, closed material proceedings could only be used if: (1) the degree of harm to national security interests would be likely to outweigh the public interest in “the fair and open administration of justice” and (2) a fair determination of the proceedings would not be possible by any other means.

The result was that the Bill, while still deeply flawed, had one of its worst deficiencies remedied.

Yesterday, the government’s amendments revealed its plans to substantially reverse those changes. With amendments 55 and 64 it proposes to throw out the above balancing process. It would be replaced with a provision that says closed material proceedings may be used if disclosure of information would be damaging to the interests of national security and  “it is in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice” to use closed material proceedings. This is very worrying change.

Of special note, there is no longer a consideration of the public interest in open justice. As the history of the bill’s progress shows, the government has explicitly set about removing that requirement. There is no need or requirement for balancing competing public interests. It does not matter, it seems, how small the damage to national security would be.

There are many other reasons to be worried by this Bill but the overt attempt to remove any consideration of open justice is extraordinary.

The members of the Committee, whatever their political stripes, should reject this amendment and retain the existing balancing, open justice and fairness requirements. Rejecting it would be entirely consistent with the government’s stated commitments to openness and transparency.  In the Lords, Baroness Stowell assured the House that the government was making continued efforts “to ensure as much openness and transparency as possible.”  If that really is the government’s commitment then it should withdraw this amendment. If it is not withdrawn, then it should be rejected.

Dr Lawrence McNamara is a Reader in Law and ESRC/AHRC Research Fellow at the University of Reading where he runs the Law, Terrorism and the Right to Know project. He gave evidence regarding media and open justice matters to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and has submitted written evidence to the Public Bill Committee regarding a range of matters related to transparency, accountability and openness. Email: l.mcnamara@reading.ac.uk  Twitter @UniRdg_LTRK   

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

Read more:


  1. ObiterJ says:

    On my blog I also wondered about whether open justice is implicit in the government’s latest proposed amendment. However, I also wondered whether, if the legislation ever comes up for interpretation, the rule in Pepper v Hart might result in the Parliamentary proceedings being examined and they would make it abundantly clear that open justice was not in the minds of Ministers. Of course, the court has to ascertain the intention of Parliament and not the intention of the executive but, in this case, whether the two will be seen to be different is debatable.

  2. londonjoshaw says:

    The other very troubling change proposed by the government (amendment #55) is that of the change in the rules for applications for CMP. The Lords changes made the rules the same for any party (including the Secretary of State). The government amendment in the Commons attempts to narrow the availability of CMP for the civilian party. If, as Ken Clarke says, CMP are necessary for all the information to be put before the court to achieve a fair result, why should this not apply to any claim, not just one where the government wishes to avail itself of a secret hearing? This is a crucial test of good faith which the government is failing.

  3. Thanks for the comments. To some extent I agree that there is room to accommodate open justice within the general idea of fairness, but not sufficient room that it can be omitted from the legislation.

    Al Rawi helps explain why. Lord Dyson [at 14] identified open justice and natural justice separately and referred to the public interest in “a fair system of justice which, so far as possible, respects the essential elements of these principles”. However, at [26] & [27], he indicated that justice might be achieved by meeting natural justice requirement but disposing of open justice: “It is one thing to say that the open justice principle may be abrogated if justice cannot otherwise be achieved. … It is quite a different matter to say that the court may sanction a departure from the natural justice principle (including the right to be present at and participate in the whole or part of a trial).”

    Continuing that separation, at [35], [39] and [41] the focus is clearly on whether there is fairness between the parties. The question of fairness is to be decided with reference to the rights of the litigants. Natural justice is, if you like, the first-level consideration and open justice is a second-level consideration.

    While open proceedings are likely to assist a claimant in knowing the case against them, it may be that neither party will want proceedings to be open. It is quite conceivable that a claimant could prefer closed proceedings. If open justice is omitted from the legislation then it will be inadequately – if at all – considered. It would fail the public, lessen the accountability of the executive, and diminish public confidence in the judiciary that flows from open proceedings.

    This is compounded by the use of “effective” administration of justice as the other factor in the government amendment. It may be more effective from a trial management view to lock proceedings off than to open them up. Moreover, the government amendments do not seek to use the public interest in openness as a balancing factor. A minimum threshold of fair and effective is set up, but nothing beyond that.

    In all this, there is a principled objection to the removal of the open justice factors. It is a wholesale diminution of a fundamental principle and, in a Bill that sets about establishing a regime of closure, it should be included.

    Unless open justice is expressly a factor, it will inevitably fall by the wayside.

  4. Paul Skinner says:

    I agree that the Lords amendment is preferable, but I am less concerned by the gvt’s proposal. This is because it seems to me to be relatively uncontroversial that the “fair administration of justice” embodies the principle of open justice in it and I would fully expect the case law to reflect that.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      I would tend to agree with this

  5. John D says:

    Let us hope that The Lords re-insert their version on next reading. That way, the government will have to either force their version through under the Parliament Act or accept the original Lords’ amendments. If the government relies upon the Parliament Act to get their version through, they may find themselves running up against the need to complete the Bill before the date of the next general election in 2015. In that case, it is highly probable that the Liberal Democrat MPs will refuse to support the government’s version.

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations 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 Facial Recognition 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 nuisance Obituary ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum 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 sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: