The House of Lords last week completed its consideration of the Justice and Security Bill. This introduced for the first time closed court hearings in UK civil jurisdiction.
The first duty of any Government is to keep citizens safe. But the idea of closed courts where one side cannot hear and test the evidence against it is a dangerous step.
I accept that there may be rare occasions when, in the interests of national security and our links with overseas intelligence agencies, we need to have a closed proceedings. But it should be “the last of the last”.
In my view the gateway in the Bill was too wide. Along with other peers we forced a series of votes as a result of which some significant narrowing was achieved. The Bill which begun in the House of Lords now goes to the House of Commons. It will be interesting to see if the Government tries to reverse these changes!
Freedom is more important than safety and security because once the door has been closed, neither security nor safety can be guaranteed. The whole idea of closed courts should be repugnant to anyone who values freedom and considers that government should be serving the people rather than the other way around.
The whole idea of evidence behind closed doors is open to abuse because the accused cannot challenge what is said, nor how it was supposedly collected.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
The first duty of any Government is to keep citizens safe. But the idea of closed courts where one side cannot hear and test the evidence against it is a dangerous step.
If Saad Al Hilli, the family man who was murdered in the south of France, was killed by security services, say for attempting to convey radioactive material to the Iranians, or the know how for getting it, he might have got a better hearing in a closed court.
I don’t think that he was commiting any crime for a moment, but until the crime (murder or killing) is solved we shall not know, and what is more important, nor will his family.
This link tells the truth as to why our government wants secret courts. They want to hide more and more of what they are personally choosing to do that currently is against our laws.
Every one of us should be out on the streets making a stand against this dreadful sinking of our protection as ‘civilised’ human beings.
What has happened to those in Parliament? They once stood for open justice. Seen to be done. Who is leading them into acceptability of such an attack on our freedom and right to open hearing?
This move is insidious. Once this concept is taken on board as okay, it will spread very quickly and infect the entire system and take us all toward a path of hidden injustice.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/yvonne-ridley/secret-courts-what-they-dont-want-british-people-to-know
The issue of secrecy does invoke thoughts of the ‘Star Chamber’ and those who thought themselves above the law. Politicians used this secrecy to good effect to foster injustice. In the end society took the view that nobody was above the law and a public hearing was the best defence against secrecy.
The bill serves the interests of the state and allows Judges greater discretion in court proceedings. In debating the bill the house attempts indirectly to minimise the opportunity for ‘Judge made Law’ by bringing greater clarity to primary legislation as Public Law.
Therefore, two types of law sit side by side: Acts of Parliament and ‘Judge made Law’. It can take Parliament a while to catch up. Post legislative scrutiny helps with this process.
Actually, there is a third type of law, Constitutional Law. This law is the container for Public Law and sets out limits as to how Public Law or ‘Judge made Law’ may be constructed or judged.
Something very strange recently happened in Parliament. In its wisdom it removed the ability, should it ever be required, for Judges to create ‘Constitutional Judge made Law’. Without any evidence to the contrary a now discredited government with a large majority saw fit to remove both the Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords from Parliament by the creation of a Public Law domain Supreme Court.
But what of constitutional law, if such has no legitimate accountability through a court, even the High Court of Parliament then it has no value, it does not exist.
I put it to you Lord Hodgson that the constitution is now suspended, that the constitutional protection that people failed to demand as a right, is now a matter of regret. For the first time in 1400 years they stand naked before assaults on their dignity by a Parliament with Kingly powers that treats them with scant regard.
Ref: Role of the Lord Chancellor: Keeper of the Royal Conscience.
D. The history and development of the post of Lord Chancellor
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02105.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/07/marines-accused-murdering-afghan-anonymity?INTCMP=SRCH
This particular example of secrecy is spurious and a travesty. If you read the defence lawyer’s rationale for keeping the identity of the “defendants” secret, it is obviously nonsense, unless they happened to be back in Afghanistan, which they are not.
They are on conditional bail in the UK, whoever they may be. A…B….C…D…E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulford_Camp
It is also interesting, to consider that both the intelligence corps and the 12th Tank Transporter Squadron are based here.
The Royal Marines, mentioned in the article above, are not. 12th Tank Transporter Squadron is not based at Bovington, as one might reasonably expect.
My last question, which takes the subject of justice and security to its limits in the context.
The great French detective, Hercule Poirot,
once remarked in his inimitable accent,
“You may see murder in a man’s eyes but there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it…”
The question I am asking is whether a man who knows that there will be children present when he does, will show compassion as well as murder in his?
I have completed an information report on the subject.