Martin Chamberlain, one of the overwhelming majority of Special Advocates openly opposed to the plans, spoke first. His quiet forensic criticism of a scheme that "cannot be described as fair" was all the more powerful, coming as it did from someone who has worked within closed material proceedings that have resulted in people losing their liberty or being deported without ever seeing the case against them. This is the system which Government now seeks to apply across the entire civil justice sphere and certainly whenever the conveniently broad black flag of "national security" might be draped over incompetence, impropriety and embarrassment in public office. He writes in today's Daily Mail - the paper having consistently campaigned on this issue over recent days and weeks.
Former DPP Lord Macdonald of the River Glaven exploded suggestions that the UK's intelligence-sharing relationship with the US would be weakened but for the Green Paper. He reminded those assembled of the two-way and mutually-beneficial nature of this relationship and of how past occasionally intemperate talk of non-cooperation had quite rightly never materialised in practice. Another respected voice of first-hand cutting edge experience.
Acclaimed Mail on Sunday investigative journalist David Rose further evidenced Lord Macdonald's argument with a direct quote from a senior US official "authorised" to comment on such matters. The official unequivocally contradicted the Green Paper's self-serving claim that this intelligence relationship had been degraded since Reprieve's ground-breaking litigation in support of rendition victim Binyam Mohammed.
Veteran Guardian security and defence specialist Richard Norton-Taylor asked how the public and press could be expected to entrust such a sweeping blank cheque with agencies who had consistently denied any involvement with the extraordinary rendition programme exposed by the very open courts they now seek to lock down.
Henrietta Hill, a renowned barrister specialising in inquests, explained what the Green Paper would have done to some of the most high profile inquests of recent years (7/7, de Menezes, Princesss Diana). She reminded the audience (who included Diane Abbott, David Davis and Lib Dem MPs Tom Brake and Julian Huppert) that our independent judiciary is perfectly capable of balancing open justice with sensitivity in the public interest.
And Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest, reminded everyone that the whole point of the inquest system is answers for grieving families and a worried public. This Green Paper seeks to lock it down in a way previously rejected not once, but twice by Parliament. No organisation has done more to defend the inquest system in this country. We are proud to campaign together once again.
