‘Plans to hold the criminal trial of two men charged with serious terrorism offences entirely in secret runs the risk of creating a miscarriage of justice that will never be put right, the shadow justice secretary has warned.’
The Guardian, 5th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Nicholas Phillips on the problems posed by the use of secret evidence.’
London Review of Books, 17th April 2014
Source: www.lrb.co.uk
‘Children separated from their parents in secret family court judgments must be able to find out the reasons for the court’s decisions when they grow up, the most senior family judge has said. Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, said it was “great concern” that the judgments of all family court judges were not routinely transcribed and published.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th May 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘R (on the application of British Sky Broadcasting Limited) (Respondent) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 17. This was an appeal from a ruling by the Administrative Court that it was procedurally unfair, and therefore unlawful, for BSkyB to have had a disclosure order made against it without full access to the evidence on which the police’s case was based and the opportunity to comment on or challenge that evidence.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th March 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘On the hearing of an application by a police officer for a production order under section 9 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, seeking access to journalistic material held by a news organisation for the purposes of an investigation into an alleged offence, the court could not have regard to evidence adduced by the police in support of the application which had not been disclosed to the news organisation.’
WLR Daily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The important general principle is of course that a party to whom a document has been disclosed in litigation may use that document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed. There are, nonetheless, three significant exceptions to that principle, set out in CPR r31.22(1).’
Panopticon, 7th February 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The seizure of journalists’ notebooks, photographs and digital files could be conducted in secret hearings, owing to a little-publicised clause in a government bill aimed at cutting red tape, media organisations have warned. Requests for notebooks, computer disks, photographs or videos must currently be made in open court and representatives of news groups can be present. But the clause – in the deregulation bill, which comes before the Commons on Monday – significantly alters the way courts consider so-called “production orders”, stripping out current safeguards.’
The Guardian, 31st January 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Grandparents of child taken into care by Essex County Council tell of their anguish at not having legal rights to be her guardian.’
Daily Telegraph, 11th December 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The government has won a high court order to prevent the partial lifting of a secrecy order affecting the proposed inquest into the death of former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko.’
The Guardian, 27th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A court could make a declaration under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 permitting a closed material application to be made to the court before a public interest immunity claim had been made or determined.”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“CF v Security Service and others and Mohamed v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others [[2013] EWHC 3402 (QB). The High Court has today made the first court ruling on the use of the Justice and Security Act 2013 in a civil claim for damages.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A group of women who are taking legal action against police chiefs over claims they were tricked into forming long-term relationships with undercover spies have lost their fight to have part of their case heard in public.”
The Guardian, 5th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“In ‘Evans (No. 1)’, a 2010 case concerning the transfer of suspected insurgents for questioning in certain military centres in Afghanistan, the High Court had ruled, partly in an open judgment, partly in closed proceedings, that UK transfers to NDS Kandahar and NDS Lashkar Gah could proceed without risk of ill treatment (which is contrary to UK policy), but that it would be a breach of the policy and therefore unlawful for transfers to be made to NDS Kabul. It was subsequently discovered that there had not been jurisdiction to follow a closed procedure in that case, but what was done could not be undone, so the confidentiality agreements and the closed judgment remained in force.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Britain’s controversial deployment of US-built Reaper drones in Afghanistan will come under scrutiny in court this week in a closed hearing that will see a UK-based drone operator give evidence for the first time.”
The Independent, 22nd September 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular breakfast cereal variety box of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can find previous roundups here. Post by Sarina Kidd, edited and links compiled by Adam Wagner.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“On 19 June 2013, the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 1) and (No. 2). Gavin Irwin reviews the latest developments in the deployment of sanctions against Iran and the tensions that can arise between international organisations, nation states and commercial entities.”
Full story (PDF)
Dyers Chambers, 11th July 2013
Source: www.dyerschambers.com
“In Al Rawi & Ors v The Security Service & Ors [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531 the claimants (respondents in the Supreme Court) were bringing civil claims for damages against the defendants (appellants in the Supreme Court) alleging complicity by the defendants in their mistreatment by foreign powers (including detention at Guantanamo Bay). The defendants as part of their defence wished to place before the court ‘security sensitive material’ – presumably the evidence of intelligence agents, or similar, denying the complicity – which for security reasons could not be disclosed to the claimants. Thus the defendants submitted that the court hold a “closed material procedure”. They envisaged that the evidence would be placed before the courts in closed session, i.e. a session from which the claimants and their representatives (and the public) were excluded. In the closed session the claimants would be represented by “special advocates” appointed by the court who would have access to the evidence but would not be able to take instructions from the claimants. Such procedures are controversial since they threaten the fundamental principles of open justice and natural justice. On the other hand, the national interest would doubtless be impaired, in some cases, if intelligence agents gave evidence and their methods and secrets were exposed in open court.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 29th July 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“UK-Russian relations were a ‘factor’ in the government’s decision not to hold a public inquiry into the death of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, Home Secretary Theresa May has said.”
BBC News, 19th July 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“While MPs were dreaming of the imminent long summer break and a possible pay hike, in mid-June the Government produced the draft amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) necessary to bring Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘JSA’) into force. Many – including JUSTICE – consider the Act’s introduction of closed material procedures (‘CMP’) into civil proceedings unfair, unnecessary and unjustified.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th July 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025