National Security Requires A Secret Trial ?

[mongers]

The 'government' is planning to hold a trial entirely in secret, news agencies/newspapers today went to the high court to protest this was unprecedented and against the national interest.

All we now know is it involves two individuals known as A/B and C/D, or similar initials, who are charged with a bomb plot and other acts, the government says national security dictates it should be a secret trial.

Some journalist no a little bit more about the situations, but aren't at liberty to say anymore than the above bare bones.

So what do you think of this happening in a major Western democracy?


A new star chamber ? 

[mongers]

OK, I've now found a summary news item to update what I heard on the radio:

Secret trial plan for English court

Criminal trials: Open hearings so that justice is seen to be done

A terrorism trial could be heard entirely in secret for the first time in an English court.

Senior judges have been hearing that the Crown Prosecution Service wants the criminal case to be dealt with completely behind closed doors on grounds of national security.

The Court of Appeal is to rule in the coming days on a media challenge to the restrictions on the case.

The trial relates to two defendants referred to only as "AB" and "CD".

Criminal cases are heard in open courts which the public and media can attend. There are sometimes reporting restrictions covering specific parts of cases - but there has never been a trial that has happened completely behind closed doors.

The major terrorism case involving defendants AB and CD would be the first to involve a jury in a normal courtroom hearing evidence in secret.

The details emerged at an appeal against an order issued in May by Mr Justice Nicol which banned the identification of the defendants and access to the trial. The media were banned from reporting the existence of that order until the Court of Appeal hearing.

The court heard that AB and CD had been arrested "in high-profile circumstances" and faced allegations of the preparation of terrorist acts and possessing bomb-making instructions.

Anthony Hudson, counsel for the media organisations challenging the restrictions, told the appeal judges: "The Crown has sought and obtained an unprecedented order that the trial of two defendants charged with serious terrorism offences should take place entirely in private with the identity of both defendants withheld and a permanent prohibition on reporting what takes place during the trial and their identities.

"This appeal raises important issues relating to not only the constitutional principle of open justice but the equally important principle of fairness and natural justice."

Mr Hudson told the panel of three judges that the planned secret trial meant the court was faced with a test of its "commitment to that constitutional principle".

In 2008, the Old Bailey heard parts of a murder trial in secret on grounds of national security - but the defendant was named and large parts of the case were heard in public.

However, Mr Hudson said that the AB/CD prosecution went much further.

The court also heard that the head of the Crown Prosecution Service's counter-terrorism team had claimed that if a decision was taken to hold the trial in open court, and to identify the defendants, it might have to abandon the prosecution.

Richard Whittam QC, for the CPS, said the AB/CD trial was an exceptional circumstance.

"There is a justification for defendants to be anonymous and there is jurisdiction for the court to sit in private," he said. Mr Whittam said the complete ban on reporting the case would not necessarily exist forever.

Lord Justice Gross, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Burnett said they would give their decision on the appeal in a few days' time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27704747

[Valmy]

So what do you think of this happening in a major Western democracy?

Sounds kind of like the 1894 trial in the Dreyfus Affair.

'We cannot tell you anything...except we think a Jew is spying for the Germans.'

[jimmy olsen]

So what do you think of this happening in a major Western democracy?

Sounds kind of like the 1894 trial in the Dreyfus Affair.

'We cannot tell you anything...except we think a Jew is spying for the Germans.'

Yup, it's complete bullshit.

[Sheilbh]

This has managed to outrage all the papers (I suspect the government plan to change the law of trespasss for fracking will do the same)

The Mail is outraged:


The CPS have said they may not be able to go ahead with the prosecution without this, but then they would say that.

I thought certain parts of a trial could be held in secret and there's reporting restrictions. So I'm not sure what it could be that that's insufficient

[dps]

If there are national security concerns, I can understand a desire to keep some of the evidence secret (for example, if someone stole the blueprints for a nuke, I can see why the government might not want the content of those plans entered into the public record as part of the evidence), but while perhaps understandable in rare circumstances, it's not compatible with my concept of a fair trial.  And I can't see any reason to keep the identities of the defendents secret.

[Sheilbh]

I thought this was all from the government's bill permitting secret trials earlier in the Parliament. But from what I've read that was all about civil trials.

From what I've read of human rights lawyers this morning there seems to be a little bit of bafflement over what the legal basis is for a secret criminal trial

Edit: So from the Mail, which is reporting this far more fully than the broadsheets:

Criminal cases are heard in open courts which the public and media can attend.

Reporting restrictions sometimes cover specific parts of cases, but no previous trial has been held entirely in secret.

The Official Secrets Act enables cases to be heard behind closed doors but the legislation is rarely used in this way.

The power to hold a trial in secret comes from common law and is not covered by recent terrorist legislation.

Richard Whittam QC, who will prosecute the two men, said the Crown Prosecution Service supported open justice.
But he said 'exceptional circumstances' had led to the request for secrecy.

In 2008, the Old Bailey heard parts of a murder trial in secret on grounds of national security.

But the defendant, Wang Yam, who battered recluse Allan Chappelow to death, was named and most of the case was heard in public.

The trial of Britain's most notorious double agent, George Blake, was held partly in secret in the early 1960s.

Charged under the Official Secrets Act, he was sentenced to 42 years for passing secrets to the Soviets.

[Jaron]

I don't know you guys can argue over these petty things when Justin Bieber was just revealed to be a racist.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think it is OK for A/B - he is a very dangerous guy and a public trial would be risky.   But not for C/D - doesn't seem necessarily for him.

[PRC]

I don't know you guys can argue over these petty things when Justin Bieber was just revealed to be a racist.

I'm ashamed that he is Canadian and we don't want him back.  I hope that helps.

[Zanza]

That kind of stuff should not happen. Don't you have a constitutional tradition of public trials? "National security" shouldn't override some of the very basic tenets of rule by law.

[derspiess]

I don't know you guys can argue over these petty things when Justin Bieber was just revealed to be a racist.

Not to mention Helen Mirren's potty mouth.

[Valmy]

I think it is OK for A/B - he is a very dangerous guy and a public trial would be risky.   But not for C/D - doesn't seem necessarily for him.

[Berkut]

This falls into what for me is a simple metric:

Having a secret trial is more damaging than any damage that is likely to result from not having a secret trial. I don't want to live in a country that has secret trials.

I would rather tolerate living in a slightly less secure country without secret trials than a slightly more secure country that has secret trials.

[Admiral Yi]

There are already aspects of the US court system that are closed to the public: conferences in a judge's chambers or at the bench, victims identities which are protected, witnesses who's identities are masked.  Should all these be done away with too?