Government not required to disclose full details of defence

27 October 2014 by

blind justiceCF v The Ministry of Defence and others [2014] EWHC 3171 (QB) – read judgment

Angus McCullough QC of 1 Crown Office Row acted as Special Advocate in this case. He has nothing to do with the writing of this post.

The High Court has ruled that in a case against the state which did not directly affect the liberty of the subject, there was no irreducible minimum of disclosure of the state’s case which the court would require. The consequences of such disclosure for national security prevailed.

Factual and legal background

The claimant, Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, had made a number of claims against various government departments, alleging complicity in unlawful and arbitrary detention and inhuman and degrading treatment and torture on the part of British authorities in Somaliland.  He also sought damages for trespass, breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, and misfeasance in public office. As Irwin J said,

The remedy sought is not confined to ordinary compensation, but extends to damages for breach of the Convention and to declaratory relief, which in the context of this case, and if the Claimant succeeded, would represent an important marking of unlawful behaviour: a matter in which there is a legitimate public interest.

In this hearing the claimant sought further disclosure of the defence in his claim against government departments, where a closed material procedure had been permitted under Section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.

CF submitted that he was in the dark as to the defendants’ position in the claim, as they had made a general denial of wrongdoing but had not specifically denied all his allegations. He therefore argued that it was is essential, in the interests of justice and to achieve conformity with Article 6, that there should be disclosure of “a substantial amount of information”, and that as a minimum, he should be provided with a response to each specific allegation, in the form of admission, non-admission or denial, and that he should be given “an intelligent, balanced and accurate summary of the defendants’ positive case”.

The Court’s decision

The application was refused.  In a case not directly affecting the liberty of the subject, there was no irreducible minimum of disclosure, or necessary minimum revelation by summary or gist of the defendants’ case, which the court would require despite the consequences for national security. Even though CF’s case had potentially important issues of public interest, it was essentially a claim for compensation. The court had to conduct a balancing exercise, bearing in mind the competing principles of maximising the trial’s fairness and the preservation of national security. Both injustice to a claimant and injustice to the state were to be avoided. The latter would arise if disclosure would so compromise national security that the state was compelled to settle what could be an unmeritorious claim.

The court rejected CF’s submission that Carnduff v Rock [2001] EWCA Civ 680 was relevant only in the context of public interest immunity; on the contrary, an unjust victory, achieved only because a case was untriable, had to be avoided if at all possible. This would be the inevitable outcome if the government could not properly defend its case without compromising intelligence information.  A proper adjudication on the facts, even if all the facts could not be public, had to be a superior outcome to an unmerited loss by either side. The public interest was also served by a trial and done a disservice by a default outcome.

If the state lost by default, there would be an unjust payment, and there would be no scrutiny of what had been done in the state’s name. The court was unable to spell out in open judgment its consideration of the arguments in the closed proceedings.

In this case, the court had carefully considered the material the defendants had relied on in applying for the s.6 declaration, which was the most central material in the case. It had seriously considered whether some of that could be released without damaging national security, but that was not possible. Irwin J was also persuaded that the Strasbourg authorities supported this approach; he cited Lord Mance in Tariq v Home Office :

[he] concluded that the European jurisprudence set out in Kennedy, meant that, subject to safeguards sufficient for the case in hand:
“… national security considerations may justify a closed material procedure, closed evidence (even without the use of a special advocate) and, furthermore, (as in Kennedy itself) a blanket decision leaving the precise basis of determination unclear.”

The material was cross-referential; there could not be disclosure of any meaningful part of it without leading on to the remainder. For those reasons, and for reasons expressed in the closed judgment, no useful additional disclosure was possible without severe compromise of national security.

 I wish to stress that in approaching this decision I have not applied a government policy of “neither confirm nor deny”, far less watched such a flag be hoist up a flagpole and responded with an automatic salute. I have considered with close care the body of material which was relied on by the Secretary of State in applying for the declaration under Section 6, and which, as I observed in the previous judgment, is the most central material in the case. I have given genuinely anxious thought to whether some of the material could be released without creating damage to national security. I do not believe that is possible.

The safeguards would be the special advocates’ assistance and a careful consideration of the inferences to be drawn. There was no important matter in the case where CF’s case was unknown and the special advocates would be unaware of the case they had to put.

 

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

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. towardchange says:

    Reblogged this on English Law and commented:
    The remedy sought is not confined to ordinary compensation, but extends to damages for breach of the Convention and to declaratory relief, which in the context of this case, and if the Claimant succeeded, would represent an important marking of unlawful behaviour: a matter in which there is a legitimate public interest.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 prosecutions 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 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 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: