MINISTERS are attempting to overturn concessions won by members of the House of Lords to the Tory-LibDem Coalition Government’s repressive Secret Courts Bill, warns Reprieve.
Amendments tabled by Home Office minister James Brokenshire would remove changes made by the House of Lords which gave slightly more powers to judges in determining whether a secret court – known as a ‘Closed Material Procedure’ (CMP) – could be used by the Government, said the civil rights charity.
The amendments also mean that only Government ministers would be able to make use of a secret court in relation to information that they held; while members of the public bringing cases against them would not.
This is at odds with ministers’ claims that they have accepted changes which would allow greater ‘equality of arms’.
The House of Lords had insisted that, at the very least, a judge should be able to weigh the public interest in justice against the Government’s claims of national security in deciding whether a secret court could be used.
However, Government amendments have stripped out this provision, meaning that the judge’s hands will effectively be tied – if a minister says information is national security sensitive, the judge has little choice but to defer to that decision and allow a secret court.
Commenting, Reprieve’s Executive Director Clare Algar said: ‘The secret courts bill was already a dangerous assault on British traditions of justice and fair play – now ministers have managed to make it even worse.
‘The Bill will place the Government above the law, and badly damage the independence of our judges.
‘It does not even appear that ministers can be trusted to accept the small steps in the right direction taken by the House of Lords.
‘The only safe course for MPs is to strip out plans for secret courts altogether.’
The Law Society warned last week that extending secret courts to ordinary civil justice cases will see the UK ‘stoop to the level of repressive regimes’.
In a letter to members of the Public Bill Committee for the Justice and Security Bill, Chancery Lane said the plans could fatally undermine the courtroom, ‘which should be an independent and objective forum in which allegations of wrongdoing can be fairly tested, and where the government and others can be transparently held to account’.
President Lucy Scott-Moncrieff outlined the Society’s concerns about Part 2 of the bill, which includes proposals to extend the use of CMPs to ordinary civil law cases.
She warned that CMPs undermine an essential principle of justice, which is that all parties are entitled to see and challenge all of the evidence relied upon before the court, and to combat that evidence by calling evidence of their own.
Procedures will weaken fair trial guarantees and the principle of equality of arms, which are essential concepts of the rule of law, she added.
She said: ‘Secret trials and non-disclosure of evidence are characteristics most commonly associated with repressive regimes and undemocratic societies.
‘Whilst the government rightly takes a strong stance in respect of the importance of the rule of law globally, we fear that if passed, this bill will adversely affect the UK’s international reputation for fair justice.
‘British justice should not be seen to stoop to the level of repressive regimes.’
The Society insists that the government has failed to make a national security case for extending CMPs to ordinary civil litigation.
Scott-Moncrieff added: ‘These procedures are simply not required in ordinary civil claims, such as claims for damages in relation to negligence or breach of contract, actions for injunctive relief, and claims for judicial review, in order to enable the government to take measures necessary to combat threats to national security.’
She said: ‘The government has also failed to address the wider implications of introducing CMPs on the relationship between lawyer and clients.
‘It will be impossible for lawyers to advise their clients in their best interests if they are not privy to the information being used against them in court and are able to discuss this with those clients.
‘This breaches a fundamental right of claimants in a just society.’
The Law Society said it will submit a detailed memorandum to the Public Bill Committee.
Meanwhile, the office of the special envoy in charge of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been shut down, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday.
Coming almost exactly four years after the President promised to close the prison within a year, this move effectively signals the end of Obama’s attempts to help with resettlement of those men still held.
A statement quietly released last Friday afternoon by the State Department stated that special envoy Daniel Fried had been reassigned, his office closed, and his responsibilities around Guantanamo given to the already overstretched State Department legal adviser.
Mr Fried’s office was established in 2009 shortly after President Obama signed an executive order calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison within a year.
The main focus of his office was on the men who have been cleared for release but who can not return to their home countries because of the real risk that they will face torture or persecution there.
Among those still held and seeking resettlement are Reprieve’s clients Yunnus Chekkouri, Abu Wa’el Dhiab and Nabil Hadjarab.
All three were hoping for the assistance of Ambassador Fried’s office to find a home outside the prison.
All have been cleared for release for several years.
Yunnus is from Morocco and Abu Wa’el from Syria.
Neither man can return home because of fears over imprisonment and torture.
Nabil Hadjarab is an Algerian who was raised in France, where his family resides.
Reprieve is currently urging the French government to do everything they can to get Nabil back to France.
The Obama administration continues to claim that they are seeking the closure of the notorious prison.
166 men remain in Guantanamo Bay, 86 of whom have been cleared for release – an arduous process involving the unanimous consent of no fewer than six US federal agencies and a designation that these men pose no threat.
Hilary Stauffer, Reprieve’s Deputy Legal Director, said: ‘Yunnus Chekkouri, Abu Wa’el Dhiab, Nabil Hadjarab and all the other men who are being held with neither charge nor trial have just been completely abandoned by the Obama administration.
‘By closing Ambassador Fried’s office the President has broken his promise to close the prison and shattered the hope that these men might ever be able to leave.
‘Government resources necessary for closing Guantanamo must be in place and have the authority to negotiate transfers with potential host governments.’
Reprieve’s current casework involves representing 15 prisoners in the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, assisting over 70 prisoners facing the death penalty around the world, and conducting ongoing investigations into the rendition and the secret detention of ‘ghost prisoners’ in the so-called ‘war on terror’.
