- In Practice
- In Business
- Moving On
Government sees off amendments on secret civil hearings
Government plans for secret courts were approved by a majority in the House of Commons on Monday evening, despite opposition from Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs and amendments tabled by the Labour frontbench.
Labour and coalition rebels who had proposed putting in place further conditions to the Justice and Security Bill before closed material procedures (CMPs) could be used in civil courts were defeated by a government majority of 73.
A second proposal requiring judges to balance the interests of national security against public interest in the fair and open administration of justice was also defeated, this time by 71 votes.
The vote represented a defeat for civil liberties campaigners, who have strived to win concessions from the government since the Justice and Security green paper was published in October 2011.
Former justice secretary and now minister without portfolio Kenneth Clarke, said that the bill will introduce much-needed legislation to strengthen oversight of the security and intelligence agencies.
It will allow civil courts, through the limited use of closed material proceedings, to hear a greater range of evidence in national security cases without endangering agents in the field or the sources of intelligence.
Yesterday a former lord chief justice, Lord Woolf of Barnes, welcomed a government concession to place the operation of CMPs under the control of judges rather than ministers.
However, the concession did not persuade other critics.
Solicitor Kartik Mittal of City firm Zaiwalla & Co said: ‘The importance of the open justice principle has been emphasised by the courts in numerous cases. Recently Lord Dyson, in the Al Rawi case, stated that the open justice principle is not a mere procedural rule but a fundamental common law principle.
‘This latest development may undermine public confidence in the justice system and poses a threat to the rule of law. It is not only important to ensure that justice is done but also to ensure that the public sees that justice is done.’
Barrister Adam Clemens of 7 Bedford Row said: ‘I cannot remember a bill in recent history which has been subject to so many amendments, and attracted such adverse media opposition and comment.
‘Even assuming the bill passes into law, two problems present. First, it is almost inevitable that it will be subject to a human rights compatibility challenge. Second, how will the provisions be meshed with the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly in relation to disclosure?’
The bill will continue to report stage on 7 March.
- Unanimous: profession votes for ‘training days’ action in protest over cuts
- International firms call off merger
- Hundreds attend legal aid protest rally
- Small business spurning legal services – LSB research
- HMRC proposes crackdown on LLP ‘disguised employment’
- PCT will mean the death of Welsh justice, lawyers warn
- Poor will suffer from court fee changes, MoJ warned
- Overwhelming public backing for legal aid: poll
- Fight PI changes, says MASS chair
- Mass meeting of barristers takes a stand on QASA
- Pannone turns to fixed-price mediation post-Jackson
- Grayling asks for quality standard for PCT firms
- 7,000 lawyers to hit the streets for free legal advice
- ‘Google’ asylum refusals
- Pilot aims to limit clinical negligence solicitors’ fees
- Will-writing could still be regulated
- In-house growth accelerating
- Appeal Court applies Russian law in dispute
- Insurers to revamp third-party code
- Court interpreters reject new contract deal
- European data plan labelled ‘demented’
- Saudi Arabia accepts registration of female lawyer
- Don’t worry about Jackson fallout – judge
- North-west paralegal initiative
- French revolution
- Criminal legal aid cuts to reach £370m
- SRA’s popularity slips
- Traffic courts to be set up
- Economy 'testing access to justice'
- MoJ plans crackdown on ‘so-called’ experts
- Midlands ABS issues ‘join us’ offer to insurers
- Law Society Excellence Awards now open for nomination