MPS revolt over secret justice plan
Horrified MPS and peers condemn Clarke’s plan for court cases behind closed doors
PLANS to undermine the ancient British principle of open justice are facing a deepening revolt.
Senior figures in all three main parties, and leading legal experts, are expressing horror at Government proposals for court cases and inquests which ministers say could ‘damage the public interest’ to be held behind closed doors.
In today’s Daily Mail, former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis writes that the proposals are more suited to despotic states such as Iran and North Korea than Britain, home of Magna Carta. He claims police chiefs privately admit they want to ensure cases such as the inquests into the deaths of the 7/7 victims and Jean Charles de Menezes, shot by police who mistook him for a terrorist, are held in secret.
An influential committee of MPS and peers is preparing to issue a ‘highly critical’ report expressing grave doubts about the draft legislation.
MINISTERS are facing a deepening cross-party revolt over plans for a massive extension of ‘secret justice’ being likened to regimes in despotic states such as Iran and North Korea.
Senior figures in all three main parties expressed horror over proposals to allow controversial court cases and inquests deemed by the Government to have the potential to ‘damage the public interest’ to be held behind closed doors.
The Daily Mail has learned that an influential committee of MPS and peers – which will question Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke on the issue next week – is preparing to issue a ‘highly critical’ report shredding draft legislation.
Tory MP David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, today writes in this newspaper that the Government’s plans should ‘appal all those who value our traditional civil liberties’.
Mr Clarke, who argues the security services are unable to defend themselves in civil cases because they cannot reveal sensitive information in open court, will defend the Government’s Green Paper proposals for so- called ‘ closed material procedures’ when he faces Parliament’s joint committee on human rights next week.
Sources close to the committee said it had ‘serious concerns’ about the draft legislation and was expected to demand significant changes.
Senior Liberal Democrat Baroness Ludford, the party’s European justice and human rights spokesman, said: ‘This appears to be a recipe for coverups of wrongdoing. Of course there may be occasions when there is a need to protect sources and national security, but the scope of this appears to be huge. It is a potentially massive breach of the right to fairness in civil cases and inquests.
‘I am bemused that Ken Clarke has agreed to front this operation, which could do serious damage to Britain’s reputation around the world.
‘One of the underpinnings of the coalition agreement is our revulsion at a lot of what Labour did in terms of liberty and undermining the integrity of the justice system. I am hoping that the Government will realise that this is an ill-judged mistake.’
Former Labour Cabinet minister Frank Dobson said: ‘ Everybody accepts that some secrecy may be necessary on the grounds of national security.
‘But what is proposed would suppress inconvenient truths about deaths, injuries, swindling, lying and just plain embarrassments. It must not be used to close the courts to victims, bereaved families, legal representations and the press. The lessons learned from recent cases should be more open justice not less.’
Labour peer Lord Dubs, who sits on the joint committee of human rights, said: ‘We have been taking evidence from a number of witnesses including advocates and barristers and the committee as a whole, including myself, are very concerned. It is going to lead to secret justice, which won’t even be justice – it will be courts closed to the public and decisions made by ministers. It is a very dangerous approach and it is not justifiable. I am very unhappy about this.’
Conservative MP Dominic Raab said: ‘It is one thing to tailor existing protections for intelligence sources to prevent terrorist suspects from suing Britain and taking the taxpayer for a ride. It is another thing altogether to throw a cloak of secrecy across inquests into the death of our troops, or those who die because of police negligence.’
Baroness Kennedy, a Labour peer and leading human rights barrister, said: ‘Open justice is one of the vital components of a justice system. Light is an antiseptic. The Green Paper presents a shocking retreat from the standards we have set in this country and which we encourage everywhere else.’
Helen Shaw, co- director of INQUEST, a charity providing support for bereaved people facing cases in a coroner’s court, said the idea of hearing evidence in secret was ‘ unworkable and completely unnecessary’.
‘We are not aware of a single inquest that cannot proceed within the current legal framework which already adequately deals with sensitive evidence,’ she said.
‘High-profile and sensitive inquests such as that into the deaths of passengers in the 7/7 bombings, the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and the deaths of 14 military personnel in Afghanistan following the Nimrod crash have been conducted thoroughly and concluded properly within the existing system.
‘Any attempt to restrict inquest hearings as proposed would again damage family and public confidence in the inquest system. The Government should think again and withdraw these proposals rather than engage in yet another difficult and contentious debate.’