Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Judge holds six-day drugs trial in secret

Adam Sage,Legal Affairs Reporter
Wednesday 06 January 1993 00:02 GMT
Comments

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.

A JUDGE has taken the unusual step of holding a six-day drugs trial in secret in order to 'protect someone', it emerged yesterday. Lawyers said afterwards that although evidence was often given in camera, it was 'extremely rare' for a complete case to be heard behind closed doors.

Court reporters barred from hearing the case have appealed against Judge Roderick Adams' decision at Inner London Crown Court. The only part of the trial open to the public was the announcement yesterday that Mehmet Gezer, a 47-year-old electrician, had been sentenced to to one year in jail for possessing hard drugs with intent to supply.

Judge Adams said there were mitigating circumstances which had led him to reduce the prison term 'considerably'. However, it is not known what these circumstances are. Last night, lawyers said Gezer, who had been found in possession of an ounce of heroin in November 1991, had been given a lenient sentence.

The trial was heard in a court annex last month, when the judge agreed to a defence request that proceedings should be held in camera. Reporters discovered the case during a routine check and applied for the sentence hearing, which was held yesterday, to be in open court. Judge Adams refused, saying that the session was closed 'to protect someone'. According to legal textbooks, the public should only be barred in exceptional circumstances.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in