Leading Articles

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 11°C / Lo 7°C
Popular Topics

Leading article: Closed justice

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

The Government's dismal push for greater secrecy in public life trundles on. A backbench amendment that would have thrown out the Government's proposals for the replacement of open inquests with secret "inquiries" was narrowly defeated in the Commons yesterday evening.

Just as depressing as the result of the vote was the quality of the case made by the Government in favour of its bill. The only argument that the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, could muster to justify this alteration in our existing legal arrangements is the hypothetical danger of the intelligence-gathering techniques of the security services being exposed and thereby compromised in open inquests.

Related articles

The truth is that such "national security" arguments are a smokescreen. This bill is all about sparing the police and the authorities from any embarrassment that might arise from open inquests and their independent-minded coroners.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

( Leave a comment )
Graccus or Crassus.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:48 am (UTC)
They (the police) seem to cope well enough with the demise of public opinion in their favour. The quesion is "What must be done"? At the very least civil disobedience, can anyone recall voting for such draconian measures? Or see these in a Labour manifesto?
| Reply | Thread
Re: Graccus or Crassus.
[info]zugzwang42 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:31 am (UTC)


Not me, but I do remember talk of a referendum on Europe...
| Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: Graccus or Crassus.
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 11:10 am (UTC)
"At the very least civil disobedience, can anyone recall voting for such draconian measures? Or see these in a Labour manifesto? "

I didn't. I voted for Labour originally because I (naively) thought they'd help close the widening gap between rich and poor.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
Secret inquest, public results
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 08:45 am (UTC)
You have the choice, a secret inquest or no inquest. Which would you prefer?
| Reply | Thread
Re: Secret inquest, public results
[info]billdavy1949 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
Not to be placed on the horns of a false dilemma.

a) It should not be a political decison to hold a secret inquest (and in Jack Straw's hand even!)

b) Judges are used to holding part of a hearing in camera.

c) A law for just one case is not a good law (nor a good use of parliamentary time)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: Secret inquest, public results
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)
It's not a false dilemma, it's an accurate assessment of what will happen.

A) Holding any inquest is due to a political decision.

B) So what? That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

C) If you think this is the only time they're going to use this law you're sadly mistaken.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: Secret inquest, public results
[info]jamie129 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
I'd prefer not to give Governments the option to choose a secret inquest instead of an open one in cases that would embarrass them.

| Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: Secret inquest, public results
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC)
Then the Government won't hold an inquest to avoid being embarrassed. That's why there is only the two choices.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
Nag your MP
[info]richard_simcox wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 08:56 pm (UTC)
I've written to my MP Joan Ruddock to ask her to oppose this. Others might like to do the same.
| Reply | Thread

Columnist Comments

rupert_cornwell

• Rupert Cornwell: From now on this is Obama's war

Watching him make the most important speech of his term was profoundly depressing.

christina_patterson

• Christina Patterson: Is this what they mean by NHS care?

How complicated can it be for a breast-care nurse to master the procedures of a clinic.

howard_jacobson

• Howard Jacobson: Let prejudice be servant to the facts, and not the other way round

'Words matter." I take that unexceptionable little sentence from a recent letter to the New York Review of Books, co-signed by Vanessa Redgrave, Julian Schnabel and Martin Sherman. Arguing against the banning of Israeli films from film festivals, the writers remind the boycotters of the attitudes they share with the Israeli film-making community. "If those who are fighting within their own communities for peace are insulted, where then is the hope?" Where is the hope, and where, moreover, is the sense, in the boycotters misdescribing the thing they oppose? "The protesters use the term 'apartheid regime'. We oppose the current Israeli government, but it is a government. Freely elected. Not a regime. Words matter."


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion