Free Press Case Study: Britain's Secret Trials

Where:
Old Bailey

When:
2014

What is happening:

• Two men accused of a terror plot will go into the dock at the Old Bailey in weeks.
• For undisclosed reasons of national security their identities, as well as details of their alleged crimes, will not be heard in public
• Prior to yesterday, the media was banned from even reporting that the trial of the two men, known only as AB and CD, was due to take place in conditions of total secrecy.
• AB is accused of ‘engaging in conduct in preparation for terrorist acts’.
• Both men are accused of possessing terrorist documents, including a file named ‘bomb making’ held on a memory stick. CD faces a fourth charge under immigration laws of improperly obtaining a British passport.
• Senior prosecutors claim the trial may not go ahead if it has to be held in public.
• But they have refused to disclose publicly the need for total secrecy.
• The trial would be the first criminal case to be held behind closed doors for hundreds of years
• Unless the appeal succeeds, journalists will be banned from being present in court to report the proceedings on 16 June or the outcome of the trial
• The evidence on which the crown relied to argue for the secret trial could not be presented in open court, he added. Whittam instead presented the evidence in private to the appeal court judges during part of the hearing on Wednesday

Free Press's importance:

• The very existence of the trial can be disclosed today only because media groups fought to have the reporting restrictions lifted
• The casting aside of the centuries-old doctrine of open courts sparked anger last night.
• ‘To hold trials entirely in secret is an outrageous assault on the fundamental principles of British justice,’ said Clare Algare of Reprieve.
• ‘This Government’s dangerous obsession with secret courts seems to know no bounds. Unless it is resisted, we risk ending up with a justice system that will not be worthy of the name.’
• Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said: ‘For a parliamentary democracy with our reputation for a fair legal system, this sets a very dangerous precedent.
• The Court of Appeal was urged by the media groups’ lawyer to restrict the secrecy order because it represented a ‘totally unprecedented departure from the principles of open justice’.
• Justice Secretary Chris Grayling insisted it was a 'matter for the courts' but stressed sitting in secret should be 'very, very rare indeed'.
• Not Transparent
• This appeal raises important issues relating to not only the constitutional principle of open justice, but also the equally important principle of fairness and natural justice
• The Official Secrets Act enables cases to be heard behind closed doors but the legislation is rarely used in this way
• Without press we wouldn't know secret trial was taking place

Shami Chakrabati, director of Liberty, condemned the secrecy, saying "Transparency isn't an optional luxury in the justice system – it's key to ensuring fairness and protecting the rule of law.