Lord Beecham, Opposition justice spokesperson, was up first. He labelled the Bill a “radical departure from our justice system”; reiterating that Labour remains unconvinced by the plans. He pointed out that it was possible to hold the 7/7 inquests without disclosing anything secret – proving that the current system of Public Interest Immunity (PII) can adequately deal with such sensitive cases.
Conservative peer and JCHR member Baroness Berridge spoke next; warning of the kind of judgments the proposals might produce. She revealed that she attended a CMP case at the High Court, and that it “did not feel like a trial”. And Leigh Day & Co partner Sapna Malik described the impact the Bill would have had on cases such as Belhadj, Al Saadi and even Baha Mousa, in which evidence of British involvement in rendition and mistreatment emerged.
Special Advocates Angus McCullough QC and Martin Chamberlain forensically dismantled the
Government’s arguments for this radical reform. As expert lawyers with
unparalleled insight into the operation of closed procedures, they highlighted
five key problems with proposals for secret courts. Firstly, CMP are inherently
unfair and cannot guarantee just outcomes; secondly, the current system for
dealing with security sensitive information works well; thirdly, the introduction
of closed procedures will damage the integrity of our justice system and the
reputation of British justice on the world stage; fourthly, the Government case for
the Bill is illogical given that it can apply to strike out cases that are
supposedly “saturated” in sensitive material and, finally, the Government has not
in any way demonstrated that such a radical departure from fundamental
principles of British justice is
required.
Finally, Lord Strasburger spoke vociferously against the scheme. He warned that peers and MPs are in danger of “sleepwalking” into fundamental changes to our civil justice system. “This Bill is beyond amendment,” he declared. “It is too wrong to fix; too wrong to put right.” Lord Strasburger said the Bill would lead to miscarriages of justice and cover-up; calling it the “thin end of a very nasty wedge”. “This is about nothing less than saving our civil justice system,” he added, in a rallying call ahead of next week. “I understand that there will be a cross-party amendment to delete CMP and I think we have a good chance of success.”
Let’s hope that Lord Strasburger is correct and that his fellow peers will heed his words of warning – and those of the JCHR – and defeat these dangerous and unnecessary proposals.
