Chakrabarti debates Clarke on secret courts bill

7 March 2013 by

ClarkerabartiThe Constitutional and Administrative Bar Association (ALBA)  hosted an invigorating debate on Tuesday night, pitting Minister without Portfolio Ken Clarke against Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, over the question of Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) in civil claims, as proposed in the Justice and Security Bill.

The Bill is currently going through the parliamentary process, having reached the report stage in the House of Commons on 4 March 2013. Of particular note to those with an interest in human rights are the proposals to introduce CMPs into civil damages actions, where allegations such as complicity in torture by the UK intelligence agencies are made.

Ken Clarke defended the proposals in the Bill to use CMPs in civil damages claims. He argued that the government is currently forced to settle claims, because to make a defence would require public revelation of information of high value to those who wish to harm the UK, in particular by posing a threat to national security. In claims of this type, he argued, it is in effect impossible for the government to permit a defence to be made, resulting in expensive settlements being paid out to claimants.

He explained that the status quo, where the government can apply for a public interest immunity (PII) certificate, allowing it to withhold material from disclosure, is inadequate for a number of reasons, including that the judge deciding the case never gets to see the material, even though it may be highly relevant to the issues being argued about. The current proposals for circumstances where CMPs may be held, he argued, have several important safeguards built into them and the judge retains discretion not to hold a CMP even if those hurdles are overcome.

His crucial point was that CMPs allow trials to occur, testing the evidence, rather than the government settling cases to prevent the risk of information of a highly sensitive nature escaping. This would make intelligence agencies “more accountable” because a judge would be able to test their defences.

Shami Chakrabarti on the other hand described the proposals as an “odious bill”. Her central attack was based on the fact that CMPs do not allow claimants to see the evidence used to defend against their claims. This allows “one side in civil litigation to control the court room”. The debate, she believes, is about “equality of arms”.

She vehemently denied that the government currently has no option but to pay damages to settle civil claims of this nature: applications for PII certificates had not even been applied for in some cases, she said. This option is currently open to the government as a means of protecting national secrets, and she was not aware of a single case where a judge had been accused of making the wrong decision in relation to PII, endangering national security. The best way for security agencies to protect their reputations, she stressed, was not to “get mixed up in torture”.

She rebutted Ken Clarke’s argument that the Bill would lead to more trials, and that this would be beneficial for the administration of justice by allowing the real issues to be tested in Court, stating “fair trials don’t equal more trials”.

Who won the debate? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

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

Read more:


  1. U.K. Police State, Secret Court, catch all excuse, “It, not in the National Interest” to divulge this Information. Tory/Labour/Lib-Dem, all have vested interest to stop Democracy. Police/Media, all controlled, by Elite.

  2. marie says:

    Dear Ms Rosemarie Cantwell,

    I entirely agree with your comments on civil liberties erosion if there is no equality of Arms. This is a real danger to those like myself and my late mother who have already encountered “rough justice”.
    I believe that CMP’s are a contravention of ECHR Article 6. Many laws such as the Mental Capacity Act and the Best Interests doctrine are simply instruments of manipulating and controlling outcomes. Governments, historically made laws to gain control over the desired outcomes.

    CMP’s is about monopolistic power and thus control of due process and not about justice. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your comments of 17 February on the MidStaffordshire enquiry bloc. I found your reply very very helpful. I have a question on inquests and human rights. 07851401715.Many many thanks.


  3. Novanglus says:

    Is there a recording of the debate?

  4. James Lawson says:

    Evidence would otherwise be uncontentious can now bear the security caveat ‘RESTRICTED’. Anything reasonable discoverable in the public domain can now be classified ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ UK EYES ONLY’ anything originating out of hearsay or freely available on a US Website, Wikipedia or third-hand rumour and gossip which forms any part of a decontextualised report and dressed up as ‘fact’, incapable of being tested by cross-examination may be classified ‘SECRET’ along with the ‘TOP SECRET’ Law Report which you will not find on LEXIS/NEXIS any time soon.

    It is open-season on anything and everything having a security classification attached to it by a minor civil servant in the Stationery department ‘just in case’ it might at some time in the future be needed to bring it within the domain of ‘National Security’ and open the door to ‘closed evidence procedure’.

    It is a beautifully designed system which will ensure that whole tracts of the government machine are ‘immunised’ from accountability within a flourishing culture of impunity.

  5. Rosemary Cantwell says:

    7 March 2013

    Dear Ms Mcardle

    Thank you very much for this illuminating artlcle of yours. Civil liberties will definitely be eroded if there is not the “equality of arms” as stated by Shami Chakrabati because some civil cases can be referred on to other court fora, including Magistrates and Crown Courts, and so if there is not a properly investigated Civil Court claim where both sides have equal access to the full documentation and knowledge of the allegations, then you could end up with terrible rough justice which is not justice but kangaroo courts.

    This is not the policing of Dixon of Dock Green nor is it liberty or humane and it certainly breaches the UN Convention of Human Rights.

    Thank you very much for your excellent article.

    Yours sincerely,

    Rosemary Cantwell

  6. Lofthouse says:

    He had ‘arguments’? Kept them very well hidden on the night…I barely noticed them :)

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: