Just this week Ken Clarke, the minister without portfolio tasked with pushing the Bill through Parliament, made this abundantly clear. He suggested that unless MPs vote for this Bill, the Government would end up paying out compensation to those who accuse the authorities of mistreatment. He also claimed that payments could end up in terrorist hands. This new and wild claim reveals the Government’s increasing desperation. As Mr Clarke well knows, the Treasury has extensive powers to freeze any assets it suspects are linked to terrorism.
He also failed to address a key flaw in his argument.
The Government can never be “forced” to pay out compensation unnecessarily. Like anyone else accused of wrongdoing, the Government or MI6 have the option to fight these allegations in court. Existing legal devices allow them to ask the judge to keep information sensitive to our national security out of the public eye while ensuring that important and relevant material is disclosed.
So what’s the problem? The answer is simple; if the Government is involved in rendition and torture, allowing the claimant their day in court would also force them to reveal any "murky" involvement to press and public. Leaving their reputation in the hands of a judge is just too risky and the Government would rather settle to save their blushes. Those in any doubt just need to take a look at the case of Binyam Mohamed, which was highly embarrassing for the Government and is often thought to be the driver behind the proposals in the Justice and Security Bill.
Of course, the best scenario for the Government would be to change the law to allow them to lock the press, public and even the claimant out of court allowing them to present their narrative to the judge unchallenged in secret proceedings.
Rather worryingly, that’s exactly what this odious Bill is proposing as we reach a crucial stage and MPs vote on the Bill.
This vote is even more significant following the decision by the Government to overturn a series of amendments made by cross-party Peers in the Lords - reverting the Bill to its original form, making sure secret courts are the norm not the exception.
We need your help to stop this Bill and to email your MP to remind them how unjust and unfair these proposals are.
Read Five reasons Liberty opposes the Government's Justice and Security Bill to help compose your email to your MP.
Or find out What kind of cases would this Bill help hide?
See a timeline of our FTEO campaign so far:
- December 2011 – The Government unveils its plans for secret courts in the Justice and Security Green Paper. Special Advocates, the lawyers who would be appointed by the Government to represent them in these secret courts, respond criticising the proposals.
- Feb 2012 – Liberty launches its For Their Eyes Only campaign on February 14. The Daily Mail begins their campaign No to Secret Courts in opposition to the proposals.
- May 2012 – The Justice and Security Bill is published on May 28th. Plans to hold inquests in secret are dropped but an option for ministers to overrule judicial discretion is added. Liberty launches its blindfold petition.
- June 2012 – Liberty protests outside the Supreme Court to coincide with the Bill’s Second Reading in the Lords.
- September 2012 – The Cabinet reshuffle sees Chris Grayling replace Ken Clarke in the Ministry of Justice however Ken Clarke retains responsibility for the Bill. Liberty lobby the Lib Dems at their conference in Brighton and they vote to scrap Part 2 of the Bill, which contains the secret courts proposals.
- October 2012 – The Attorney General admits at the Liberty Conservative Party fringe event that he is ‘uncomfortable’ with the proposed Closed Material Procedures (CMP).
- November 2012 – Lord Pannick wins the Liberty Human Rights ‘Independent Voice’ Award for his opposition to the Justice and Security Bill. He and other cross-party Peers make a series of amendments reinstating the role of judges in deciding when to implement secret courts.
- December 2012 – Liberty gifts a copy of ‘Cruel Britannia’ by investigative journalist Ian Cobain to all parliamentarians reminding them of the importance of the media in holding the authorities to account.
- January 2013 – Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie and Anthony Peto QC, of Blackstone Chambers, publish a report, Neither Just nor Secure, which rejects the legislation.
- February 2013 – The Government ignores campaigners and Peers and takes out the amendments made in the Lords - reverting back to the original proposals.
