header-logo header-logo

27 November 2014 / Thomas Garner
Issue: 7632 / Categories: Features , Public , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Behind closed doors?

garner

Thomas Garner examines the possibility of closed material procedures in extradition proceedings

On 5 November 2014 the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of VB and others v The Government of Rwanda and others [2014] UKSC 59, [2014] All ER (D) 41 (Nov). Rwanda seeks the extradition of several individuals accused of genocide and related crimes. The judgment concerns closed material procedures in extradition hearings and touches upon the interplay between asylum and extradition.

The appellants argued that there are substantial grounds for believing that, there is a real risk that they will suffer a flagrantly unfair trial in Rwanda. As part of their case they wished to call a number of witnesses who are unwilling to give evidence if their evidence and identity was disclosed to the Government of Rwanda (GoR). Some witnesses said that they would only disclose their evidence to the judge.

The appellants invited the extradition judge to devise a “reverse closed material procedure” whereby the GoR would be prevented from seeing certain evidence. It was suggested

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll