House of Lords rejects plans for secret courts
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.
Diving in at the deep end is no excuse for shirking the style stakes
- 1 Belgium fan Axelle Despiegelaere lands L'Oreal campaign after World Cup viral photo
- 2 Orange Is The New Black has not been cancelled – it was a hoax
- 3 Why I'm on the brink of burning my Israeli passport
- 5 Blackest is the new black: Scientists have developed a material so dark that you can't see it...
Pope Francis: ‘One in 50’ Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals is a paedophile
Fry ‘criticises Operation Yewtree in dinner party rant’ calling for tougher laws to deter false sex abuse allegations
Supermoon 2014 in pictures: Moon appeared bigger and brighter at the weekend
Saharan remains may be evidence of first race war, 13,000 years ago
Israel-Gaza conflict: ‘Sderot cinema’ image shows Israelis with popcorn and chairs 'cheering as missiles strike Palestinian targets'
Sustained immigration has not harmed Britons' employment, say government advisers
War is war: Why I stand with Israel
Even when it brutalises one of its own teenage citizens, America is helpless against Israel
Socialist Worker called to apologise over ‘vile’ article saying Eton schoolboy Horatio Chapple's death is ‘reason to save the polar bears’
Emergency data law: David Cameron plots to bring back snoopers’ charter
NUT strike: David Cameron announces crackdown on strike action ahead of mass industrial action
£27,000-£34,000 per annum: US Embassy: An office of the US Embassy based in Be...
£27,000-£34,000 per annum: US Embassy: An office of the US Embassy London base...
£45000 - £60000 per annum: Charter Selection: Charter Selection are working wi...
£35000 - £40000 per annum + Benefits: Ashdown Group: Content Manager - Central...