‘The Court of Appeal have just handed down judgment in the key case of JXMX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96. This fundamentally changes the approach to anonymity in approval hearings.’
Cloisters, 18th February 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘IPSA will name MPs who face investigation into their expenses, but they will be able to have the hearings in private.’
Daily Telegraph, 15th December 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The lord chief justice of England and Wales has condemned an attempt to hold a completely secret trial, saying it should never happen again.’
BBC News, 12th November 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘District Judge Anselm Eldergill says Court of Protection should normally be open to the Press, in moves first mooted almost a year ago by another senior judge.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th October 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A jury has been sworn in at the Old Bailey for a terror trial that will be partially held in secret.’
BBC News, 13th October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Alex Verdan QC of 4 Paper Buildings considers recent judgments in private law children cases, including the President’s judgment on legal aid funding in Q v Q.’
Family Law Week, 19th September 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘One for spy thriller fans and conspiracy theorists: in the last year, the government has asked judges five times to let it give secret evidence to defend itself in otherwise open court cases.’
BBC News, 22nd July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The application to have an entire trial held in secret caused a bit of a stir when news of the application was released earlier this month. The Court of Appeal has now permitted some of the hearing to be heard in public. This will probably be limited to the formalities at the start and end of the trial and parts of the Prosecution Opening.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 17th June 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Not since the long gone days of the Star Chamber has a case happened in secret with no reporting of the names of defendants, the charges, or the evidence. Whilst some element of secrecy is common place (see any trial with a youth or a sexual offence in the Crown Court for example) the idea that someone could be arrested, charged and potentially imprisoned without anyone beyond the immediate players knowing about it was anathema to the English lawyer.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 16th June 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The trial of two terrorist suspects, due to be held substantially in secret, has been delayed until October.’
The Guardian, 16th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The case of AB and CD has been widely described as “Britain’s first secret trial”. It would be more accurately described as the latest of a number of creeping moves towards secret justice.’
The Guardian, 12th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal is to rule on whether a trial of two terrorist suspects can be heard in secret.’
BBC News, 12th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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
‘A major criminal trial involving two men charged with serious terrorism offences could be held entirely in secret for the first time in modern British legal history.’
The Guardian, 4th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Prosecutors have been accused of behaving “ludicrously” by concealing the cause of a miscarriage of justice in which an undercover police officer is alleged to have used his fake identity in court to hide his covert infiltration.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The new president of the court that examines complaints about the intelligence services and government surveillance has indicated he may publish advance notice of its public hearings for the first time.”
The Guardian, 14th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Arbitration is increasingly sport’s forum of choice for determining disputes. But the widespread adoption of this private and confidential process brings problems of its own. For example, how can parties ensure consistency of decision-making if they are unable to access decisions that have gone before? And what is to be done if different parties have the same dispute with a governing body, but there is no consent that the disputes be heard together?”
Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 10th October 2013
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
“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
© Inner Temple Library 2024