Source: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/tag/justice-and-security-bill/
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 00:25:59
Document Index: 171532247

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 10', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 1']

Justice and Security Bill – UK Human Rights Blog
October 16, 2013 by Rosalind English
High Court orders disclosure of closed judgment in Afghanistan interrogation case
R (on the application of Maya Evans) v Secretary of State for Defence, with Associated Press intervening [2013] EWHC 3068 (Admin) – read judgment
In “Evans (No. 1)”, a 2010 case concerning the transfer of suspected insurgents for questioning in certain military centres in Afghanistan, the High Court had ruled, partly in an open judgment, partly in closed proceedings, that UK transfers to NDS Kandahar and NDS Lashkar Gah could proceed without risk of ill treatment (which is contrary to UK policy), but that it would be a breach of the policy and therefore unlawful for transfers to be made to NDS Kabul. It was subsequently discovered that there had not been jurisdiction to follow a closed procedure in that case, but what was done could not be undone, so the confidentiality agreements and the closed judgment remained in force. Continue reading →
Posted in In the news	| Tagged Afghanistan, Justice and Security Bill, open justice, public interest immunity
March 22, 2013 by Adam Wagner
Exclusive: Special Advocates’ open letter and briefing note on secret trials
On 26 March 2013 the House of Lords will consider the amendments to the Justice and Security Bill made by the House of Commons. We have reported on this blog on the Bill at various points in its progress, including on the Special Advocates’ views on the proposals.
Here, now, is the latest contribution: a Briefing Note in relation to two key amendments which will be considered next week (covering letter here). First, whether closed material procedures should only be used as a last resort, if a fair trial cannot otherwise be achieved. And second, whether the interests of open justice should be weighed in the balance by a Court in considering whether to order a closed procedure.
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, In the news, Secret justice, Terrorism	| Tagged Justice and Security Bill | 1 Comment
March 1, 2013 by Adam Wagner
The Justice and Security Bill, which will allow secret ‘closed material’ hearings to take place in civil trials, has been quietly (almost too quietly) making its way through Parliament. The Bill will allow judges to exclude lawyers, press, the public and even litigants in their own cases from civil hearings which involve national security.
Kafkaesque is a term used in almost every critical article about law ever written. But I have read The Trial (I really have!), and the effect of these proposals is not too far from that.
The key development is that many of the amendments forced through in the House of Lords under the leadership of Lord Pannick have been reversed by the Government. We have a full update coming later on the progress of the Bill, but I thought that in the mean time I would highlight a few up to date resources and developments:
Posted in Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, In the news, Secret justice	| Tagged Justice and Security Bill | 3 Comments
January 30, 2013 by Guest Contributor
Justice and Security Bill: no balance, no public interest – Lawrence McNamara
The government’s Justice and Security Bill has this week entered a new phase of debate in the House of Commons as it is considered in detail by a 19-member Public Bill Committee over the next month. The critics of this Bill – and there are many – argue that it will make “secret justice” a standard part of our legal process. The latest set of amendments proposed by the government were revealed yesterday and within them lies a crucial and unjustifiable secrecy provision. The significance of the amendments becomes apparent when one looks at how the Bill has progressed so far.
In its original form the Bill said that a court “must” use closed material proceedings if there would be a disclosure of information that would harm national security interests. It would not matter how small the damage, it would not matter whether there were other public interests in disclosure of the material, and the court had no discretion.
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, In the news, Secret justice	| Tagged House of Commons, human rights, Justice and Security Bill, Secret trials | 6 Comments
November 26, 2012 by Guest Contributor
Secret Courts remixed: any better than the original? – Angela Patrick
This coming Wednesday sees the end of the first stage of the Justice and Security Bill’s passage into law. The Bill which would introduce Closed Material Procedures (CMP) – where one side of a case is excluded with his legal team and represented by a security cleared special advocate in cases involving national security – has become widely known as the Secret Courts Bill. Its progress has been closely scrutinised in this blog over the past six months.
As it completes Third Reading and passes to the House of Commons, we reflect on last week’s Lords amendments to the Bill. While there are still issues ripe for discussion at Third Reading, it is broadly accepted that the key Lords votes have passed.
Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, Damages, In the news, Secret justice, Terrorism	| Tagged Closed Material Procedures, human rights, Justice and Security Bill, secret courts | 5 Comments
July 12, 2012 by Guest Contributor
Lords “Reform”: The Justice and Security Bill – Angela Patrick
Last night saw the latest round of Lords debate on the Justice and Security Bill. It should be required reading for the Secretary of State. Peers from all benches challenged the Government’s case for the breadth of reform proposed in the Bill. A number of amendments have been tabled jointly in the names of members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Lords Constitution Committee, both Committees having already castigated the Government’s proposals as potentially harmful to the common law principles of open, adversarial and equal justice.
JUSTICE hosted Ken Clarke, QC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in conversation earlier this week. One of the topics on the table was the Justice and Security Bill. During the evening – helpfully tweeted by the Human Rights Blog’s own Adam Wagner and others (you can read the time line of tweets here) – Ken Clarke stressed his view that the opposition to the Justice and Security Bill posed by JUSTICE together with most other human rights organisations and the Special Advocates is misguided.
Posted in Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, Secret justice	| Tagged human rights, Justice and Security Bill
June 14, 2012 by Adam Wagner
Government has still not made case for “inherently unfair” secret trials, say Special Advocates
Angus McCullough QC and Jeremy Johnson QC at the JCHR
The overwhelming majority of Special Advocates have responded to the Justice and Security Bill by stating that the case has still not been made by the Government for the introduction of closed material procedures in other types of civil litigation. The full response is available here (PDF).
Fifty Special Advocates have signed the response. This represents an overwhelming consensus of those with substantial experience of the current system of secret hearings.
They accept that the new restriction to national security cases is an improvement, but retain the view expressed in their initial response to the Green Paper consultation, that:
CMPs are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition; that the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction; that no such reasons have been advanced; and that, in our view, none exists.
Posted in Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, Secret justice	| Tagged Justice and Security Bill, Secret trials
Join 74,360 other followers
New podcast: Damages claim over IVF baby
Supreme Court: state immunity rules incompatible with Article 6
Browse by legal topic Select Category adoption (1) article 8 (18) BLOG POSTS (2,498) 1COR (32) Blog news (80) Case law (840) Case comments (497) Case summaries (444) Features (61) In the news (1,910) Lectures (14) Poor reporting (51) Roundup (171) CONVENTION RIGHTS (1,144) Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression (249) Art. 11 | Freedom of Association (31) Art. 12 | Right to Marry / Found Family (25) Art. 14 | Anti-Discrimination (101) Art. 2 | Right to life (106) Art. 3 | Torture / Inhumane Treatment (154) Art. 5 | Right to Liberty (90) Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial (319) Art. 7 | Retrospective Punishment (8) Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family (382) Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion (73) Article 1 | ECHR jurisdiction (19) Article 13 | Effective remedy (20) Article 4 | Anti-Slavery (6) Protocol 1 Art. 1 | Peaceful enjoyment of property (79) Protocol 1 Art. 3 | Free elections (42) Protocol 2 Art. 1 | Right to education (16) detention (4) environmental information (4) guantanamo (2) investigatory powers bill (2) investigatory powers tribunal (2) LEGAL TOPICS (1,476) Agriculture (14) Animals (19) Bill of Rights (88) Children (112) Company/Commercial (35) Costs and Procedure (52) Court of Protection (11) Criminal (203) Damages (55) Defamation / Libel (45) Disciplinary Proceedings (18) Discrimination (55) Education (24) Employment (55) Environment (177) European (347) Family (103) Freedom of Information (97) Housing (25) Immigration/Extradition (147) Inquests and Inquiries (56) International (156) Judges and Juries (112) Licensing (3) Margin of Appreciation (66) Media (70) Medical (105) Mental Health (55) Pensions (2) Personal Injury (21) Police (68) Politics / Public Order (250) Prisons (73) Property (23) Public/Private (53) Religion (75) Scotland (25) Secret justice (42) Social Care (57) Spending cuts (21) Tax (6) Technology (68) Terrorism (133) VAT (1) Northern Ireland (5) parliament (3) ripa (2) united states (2)
Browse by month Select Month October 2017 (5) September 2017 (8) August 2017 (9) July 2017 (15) June 2017 (22) May 2017 (16) April 2017 (10) March 2017 (16) February 2017 (13) January 2017 (13) December 2016 (4) November 2016 (20) October 2016 (18) September 2016 (16) August 2016 (8) July 2016 (15) June 2016 (11) May 2016 (15) April 2016 (14) March 2016 (10) February 2016 (24) January 2016 (13) December 2015 (9) November 2015 (21) October 2015 (28) September 2015 (18) August 2015 (15) July 2015 (22) June 2015 (24) May 2015 (24) April 2015 (18) March 2015 (20) February 2015 (26) January 2015 (18) December 2014 (24) November 2014 (17) October 2014 (26) September 2014 (11) August 2014 (13) July 2014 (18) June 2014 (18) May 2014 (15) April 2014 (20) March 2014 (21) February 2014 (20) January 2014 (18) December 2013 (27) November 2013 (30) October 2013 (46) September 2013 (26) August 2013 (17) July 2013 (31) June 2013 (37) May 2013 (28) April 2013 (39) March 2013 (38) February 2013 (32) January 2013 (41) December 2012 (30) November 2012 (38) October 2012 (42) September 2012 (37) August 2012 (18) July 2012 (33) June 2012 (33) May 2012 (48) April 2012 (38) March 2012 (50) February 2012 (46) January 2012 (44) December 2011 (28) November 2011 (34) October 2011 (41) September 2011 (44) August 2011 (29) July 2011 (42) June 2011 (47) May 2011 (45) April 2011 (43) March 2011 (43) February 2011 (47) January 2011 (41) December 2010 (53) November 2010 (63) October 2010 (41) September 2010 (46) August 2010 (38) July 2010 (51) June 2010 (49) May 2010 (44) April 2010 (52) March 2010 (17) February 2010 (11) January 2010 (9) December 2009 (1) November 2009 (3) September 2009 (1) May 2009 (1)
maureenjenner on High Court rejects motor neuro…