For several hours he and fellow members of the House of Lords mulled over the dangerous and unnecessary proposed legislation, which seeks to introduce the highly-flawed system of Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) and Special Advocates into the ordinary civil law. If passed the Bill would allow the Government to defend serious allegations behind closed doors with victims, lawyers, the press and public shut out of Court.
Disappointingly some Peers appeared convinced by the skewed justifications of Ministers, suggesting the Bill adequately strikes the delicate balance between national security and open justice. But thankfully, following sharp criticism from the Labour frontbench, Peers from across the political spectrum voiced persuasive concerns. They pointed out that the current system of handling sensitive material – Public Interest Immunity (PII) – is working perfectly well; citing the Bill’s lack of judicial control as particularly troubling. Others underlined the Special Advocates’ opposition to the proposals and criticised the Bill for its disregard for the Rule of Law.
Lord Beecham, leading for Labour, suggested to the Government that the Bill could deliver “a major incursion into the right to a fair trial of issues before the Courts, impacting on civil justice rather than preventing damage to national security, which can be and has been achieved in other ways.”
Lord Judd was notably powerful, speaking of the proposed legislation’s attack on vital principles of law and human rights. “When we prattle and preach about the responsibility of other nations to implement the Rule of Law, it starts with our own demonstrable commitment to upholding those principles,” he said.
And Baroness Berridge gave a striking account of a Control Order hearing she attended, saying it felt little like a court case. “The controlled person was not even there,” she said. “When I queried that, I was told that it is not unusual because ‘there is not really much point’”. A more damning indictment of CMPs is difficult to imagine.
Despite Government claims to the contrary, Lord Dubs correctly identified that the proposed legislation would largely replace PII with CMPs “where the Government wants that to happen”. Lord Pannick echoed this criticism and labelled Part 2 of the Bill as “unnecessary and unfair”; predicting it would “damage the ability of the Courts to give judgments that are fair”.
Baroness Williams of Crosby, Lord Hodgson, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Lester and Lord MacDonald all spoke persuasively against the central proposals, questioning how confidence in the justice system could be boosted by the implementation of such secretive hearings.
But the last word should be left to Lord Strasburger who, following his earlier analysis, quite simply said: “This Bill is a toolkit for cover-ups”. We couldn’t have put it better ourselves. Our Peers are at their finest when they defend the Rule of Law – hopefully, when the Bill reaches committee stage, members will recall his wise words of warning.
