header-logo header-logo

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

Sensitive evidence

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll