House of Lords rejects plans for secret courts
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government's plans to allow some courts to sit in secret to hear evidence from spies were in crisis last night after the House of Lords inflicted a series of blows to the scheme.
The proposals have provoked a civil liberties storm with critics claiming they will undermine fundamental principles of open justice.
Ministers argue the moves are essential to allow the state to defend itself in civil cases - notably against accusations of being complicit in torture - without having to disclose sensitive intelligence material to claimants.
But Tories joined Labour and Liberal Democrat peers to demand a series of changes to the controversial Justice and Security Bill.
First, they voted by a majority of 100 to allow claimants - and not just the Government - to apply for cases to be heard behind closed doors if they thought secret material could help their case.
Moments later they voted by 105 to give judges greater discretion to sit behind closed doors and by 87 to require judges to balance harm caused by disclosing security information against the open administration of justice.
Lord Pannick, the crossbench peer who tabled the three amendments to the Bill, described the Government's proposals as a "departure from the principle of transparent justice". He said a party in a court case should always have the right to see the evidence against him and the chance to answer it.
Lord Pannick added: "Judicial decisions are respected precisely because all the evidence is heard in open court subject to acceptance and judges give a reasoned judgment which explains their decision."
Ministers believe they are wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on settling claims, some of which may have no merit, because it is unable to contest them as the evidence it would wish to produce is top-secret.
The move came after 16 terrorism suspects, including former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed, received a multi-million-pound payout last November after they claimed they were mistreated by US and British security and intelligence officials.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, director-general at MI5 between 2002 and 2007, told the Lords that presenting classified information in open court would put the lives of secret agents at risk, while at the same time compromising state-of-the-art technology used by the security services.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments