Will secret courts become the "default" position in sensitive cases?
Secret courts could become the “default” position where sensitive material is involved after ministers reversed Lords’ amendments to the Justice and Security Bill.
Where closed material procedures (secret courts) are used, the government presents its evidence in secret session in the absence of the other party, his or her lawyer, the press and the public. Only the judge, a government representative and a government-appointed special advocate are allowed to attend.
They are used for deportation orders, control orders, terrorist-related asset freezing cases, appeals against the proscription of organisations and in parole-board hearings. They have also been used by the employment tribunal in a 2000 race discrimination claim involving issues of national security.
In November, the government suffered cross-party defeats on the Bill after Peers introduced a series of amendments to make secret courts a "last resort".
This week, however, the Commons Committee scrutinising the Bill passed new government amendments reversing the changes.
This means the "last resort" amendment has been overturned and secret hearings could become the “default”, civil liberties organisations have warned.
Angela Patrick, director of human rights policy at Justice, says: “The government failed to make the case for expanding secret justice wholesale.
“Now ministers reject even minor changes to the plan to make closed hearings the default in some cases. Parliament must dig through the spin and reject this unjustifiable and damaging challenge to open justice and accountability.”
The government now faces the prospect of a vote to scrap Pt 2 of the Bill or re-instate the Lords’ amendments when the Bill moves through report stage in the Commons.
