When can a Closed Material Procedure be used?

7 December 2017 by

padlockBelhaj and Boudchar v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Foreign Secretary intervening) [2017] EWHC 3056 (Admin) – read judgment here.

The Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced the idea of Closed Material Proceedings (CMP) to civil litigation in a significant way for the first time. This is a procedure (which had previously only used in a small number of specialist tribunals) whereby all or part of a claim can be heard in closed proceedings in order for the court to consider material which, if disclosed publicly, would risk harming national security. These hearings exclude even the claimant, who is represented instead by a Special Advocate who takes instructions and then is unable to speak to his or her client again once they have seen the sensitive material.

This system is obviously far from ideal. Indeed it is a major deviation from the usual (and very important) principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. It was introduced because the alternative in some cases involving national security matters was no justice at all. But it must be used sparingly. In particular, the 2013 Act allows its use only in civil litigation and not in “proceedings in a criminal cause or matter” (section 6(11)). The question that the Divisional Court had to consider in this case is how wide that exception for criminal matters should be.


The Claimants’ claim is that they were the victims of the infamous ‘extraordinary rendition’ programme run by the US intelligence agencies as part of the war on terror. They allege that they were ‘rendered’ from Thailand to Libya, where they were unlawfully detained, tortured and threatened with execution, and they are suing a number of UK government figures who they say were complicit in, and indeed instrumental in arranging, their rendition.

Parallel to those civil proceedings, in January 2012 a criminal investigation began into complaints of ill-treatment by detainees (including the Claimants) with a view to considering whether there should be a prosecution for misconduct in public office. However, on 9 June 2016 the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute. The Claimants invoked their Victims Right to Review, but on 5 August 2016 the CPS Director of Legal Services wrote to them confirming the original decision not to bring any charges.

The Claimants were bitterly disappointed by this and launched a judicial review of the decision not to prosecute. The judicial review application was the claim to which this judgment relates. In the course of it, the Foreign Secretary applied under s.6 of the 2013 Act for a CMP hearing in order for the court to consider sensitive material. The Claimants’ objected to this, on the basis that the judicial review constituted a ‘criminal cause or matter’ and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to allow CMP.


The Divisional Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the law on what amounts to a criminal cause as opposed to a civil one. However, the Court’s conclusion was eventually that most of this case-law did not assist, because it was in the context of criminal appeals, and the phrase ‘criminal cause or matter’ can have different meanings in different statutes!

Ultimately, the Court decided that whilst the judicial review application could be seen as proceedings concerning a criminal cause or matter, it was certainly not proceedings in a criminal cause or matter. The Court held that there was jurisdiction to consider the Foreign Secretary’s CMP application. And so the litigation continues…


The most notable point in this case (and the most interesting from the standpoint of this blog) is the comment made by the Divisional Court about the tension between openness and justice created by national security concerns and the CMP process. The Court noted that:

As Mr Eadie recognises, there is a paradox here. The effect of the extension of the JSA 2013 to proceedings such as these is that the executive, in the form of the prosecuting authorities, can be held to account by judicial process. What is described by the Claimants as an encroachment on their fundamental rights in fact enfranchises informed and detailed scrutiny by the Courts, which would otherwise be impossible.

This gets to the nub of the issue. CMP is a restriction on basic rights to a fair trial, but in order to achieve a fairer trial than would otherwise be possible. As the court noted, in criminal matters “closed proceedings might be likely to breach Article 6, as well as long-established common law principles”, which is why they are exempted from the 2013 Act. But in civil litigation, even civil litigation which concerns criminal matters, closed hearings are on occasion the better of two evils.


Alasdair Henderson is a barrister at One Crown Office Row

1 comment;

  1. El roam says:

    Thanks for that interesting post . One may claim , that in fact , it doesn’t matter whether a ” criminal cause or matter ” nor even whether it may bear ” different meaning in different statutes ” . This is because , the matter in novel and innovative and crucial , bearing strategic issue and implications , which deviate from the particular interest or convenience of both parties . As such , it is a constitutional , administrative issue , whether civil or criminal , doesn’t change much . The system , needs to solve such fundamental issue whatsoever , and establish guidelines and precedent , and it does take over and prevail , the nature of the proceedings or their title . So , that is why , there are administrative and constitutional courts in fact .

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: