It’s no exaggeration to say that this Bill would forever change the face of our civil justice system. Heavy on secrecy and light on “justice”, it would introduce a murky covert regime that would lock the public, press and even claimants and their lawyers out of court wherever the Government asserts “national security”.
Frustratingly we already have a system for handling sensitive material which works perfectly well. It allows sensitive information to be excluded from a case to protect national security while ensuring as much of it as possible is safely disclosed. Under this system the material isn’t admitted at all – which means neither party can rely on it to prove their case. But these new proposals would let the Government present and rely on sensitive information in their defence during a cosy private chat with the judge - without even showing it to the other side. In other words, this Bill allows for a Ministerial free-kick at an open goal.
When the Bill was unveiled it was accompanied by a wave of Government spin. Hollow judicial triggers and the omission of inquests were paraded like grand concessions fiercely wrestled from the security services by brave Ministers dedicated to open justice. We were assured that this is about keeping us safe and ensuring that the spooks are properly accountable. If only. This is their response to the uncovering of Britain’s shameful involvement in rendition and torture during the folly of the War on Terror. They want to ensure such scandals can never be exposed again.
“National security” in its proper sense is of course crucial. But it’s a dangerously overbroad term that covers a multitude of sins. And it’s difficult to see how Kafaesque secret hearings delivering “closed judgments” – unreadable by claimants, press and public – will boost the reputation and increase the accountability of our security services. They’ll simply further stoke suspicions of abuse and cover-up.
Thankfully opposition is growing. An overwhelming majority of the lawyers who’ll have to try and work within the new system fundamentally disagree with the proposals. The Bill has also been condemned by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights and Constitution Committee. And at second reading the Bill’s complete contempt for the Rule of Law prompted many Peers to speak out. Hopefully as the examination continues others will follow suit – because so-called “secret justice” just isn’t justice at all.
