Leading article: Closed justice
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.
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.
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
Not me, but I do remember talk of a referendum on Europe...
I didn't. I voted for Labour originally because I (naively) thought they'd help close the widening gap between rich and poor.
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)
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.