header-logo header-logo

Sensitive evidence

03 February 2012
Issue: 7499 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Use of secret evidence in civil cases could render some claims untriable

The use of secret evidence in civil cases could render some claims untriable, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has said.

Giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Justice and Security Green Paper last week, Anderson spoke about the impact on civil justice of closed material procedure (CMP), under which sensitive evidence can be excluded. The Green Paper proposes introducing legislation to make CMPs more widely available in civil proceedings.

Where highly sensitive material is so central to a case that it is untriable without that evidence, the claim is either struck out or the parties are forced to settle. Neither of these outcomes is desirable, Anderson said. For example, in Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34, in which former Guantanamo detainees sought compensation, the government settled the case after being refused permission to keep evidence secret.

Anderson recommended that strict conditions be applied where CMP is allowed, and that it must be the court not the government that makes the decision in order to maintain impartiality.

The Committee is hearing evidence from a range of other experts, including Dinah Rose QC, Lord Carlile and Angus McCullough QC.

Issue: 7499 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll