Who else opposes the Justice and Security Bill?
The Scottish Government has expressed “very serious concerns” about the introduction of closed courts Scottish courts, and has made it clear to the UK Government that it “is unable to support any extension – under any circumstance – of the Bill into devolved areas”.
Special Advocates (the Government-appointed lawyers who would appear in the secret hearings should the Bill pass ) have concluded that the rules “are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition; that the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction; that no such reasons have been advanced; and that, in our view, none exists”.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded in their November 2012 report on the Bill that “we remain unpersuaded that the Government has demonstrated by reference to evidence that there exist a significant and growing number of civil cases in which a CMP is “essential”, in the sense that the issues in the case cannot be determined at all without a CMP”.
The Liberal Democrat Party passed a motion at their September 2012
conference calling for Part 2 of the Bill to be scrapped.
Conservative MP, Andrew Tyrie, concluded the Bill will not give Britain a justice system which is “more just nor more secure” and “risks damaging Britain’s system of open justice and the reputation and effectiveness of the security agencies in the struggle against terrorism”. Read his report Neither Just Nor Secure here.
The Times editorial on the day of Report stage in the House of Lords stated the proposal for secret courts as proposed in this Bill “cannot be right” and is “too deeply flawed to contemplate”.
The Daily Mail is running a campaign against the Bill, No to Secret Courts,
seeking to defend the principle of open justice which it believes is threatened by this Bill.
The Guardian has repeatedly pointed out that the impetus for the Bill is “not
some abstract concern to bring more evidence to court, still less any deficiency with public protection immunities”, rather it was the desire to contain “’political cost’ – or, in other words, political blushes”.
The Law Society and Bar Council have rejected Part 2 in a joint letter to Rt Hon Ken Clarke, the Minister without Portfolio, stating “Secret trials and nondisclosure of evidence are potential characteristics of repressive regimes and undemocratic societies” and concluding “this bill will adversely affect the UK’s international reputation for fair justice”.
Former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald QC, has said the Bill will mean that “Government wrongdoing in the area of national security is going to be less likely to see the light of day”.
The Trade Union Congress passed a motion in September 2012 which makes explicit Congress’ total opposition to the secret courts proposal.