Britain's First Secret Trial

United States of Britain or the Star Chamber resurrected?

 

It's a dodgy step. We might be on the same road being trod by the US of A. And we don't want to go there.

 

Just waiting to be told by the powers that be ...." Its ok, trust us, we know what we are doing and are looking after your best interests " or words to that effect.

 

anything to do with the Lawrence trial?

 

we shall see.

 

dont know why i am thinking this.

 

Perhaps it's true though...

 

I think the solution is fairly simple: try behind doors, but with a jury. Sure there will be leaks, but like anything where many are involved its unlikely to be that accurate to be a risk. Plus if there is, you know roughly where its come from...!

Absolute 100% blank on reporting.

IMHO we have to trust those in these positions, i.e. judges etc, to decide when it is genuinely in the public safety interest to use the exceptional power.

However, it MUST be absolute exception not the becoming-rule...and I appreciate it could be the slight incline start of a very sharp and slippery slope

 

I feel that a responce from Pete may be forthcoming on this.
Pete,Pete,where for are you ............

 

It's a bag of shite.

There, you wanted my opinion.

 

"First secret trial ever / since Magna Carta" is just journalistic exaggeration, or ignorance.

For many years various types of trials in the UK, or parts of trials, have been held in secret; or some or all of the evidence has been secret; or the identities of some of the participants have been kept secret before, during or after the trial, or permanently. In some cases evidence is kept secret from the defendant. By way of example, see
http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/special-immigration-appeals-commission
[I have to declare a connection here - some years ago I held management responsibility for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission].

The presumption that courts sit in public is rebuttable. The Crown Court, High Court, Court Martial, and the superior courts can (for good reason) decide to sit in private for some or all of the proceedings, can impose reporting restrictions, can prevent disclosure of a person's name, etc.
See for example the Contempt of Court Act 1981 sections 4 and 11; the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 section 46; etc.

In short there is not much new - nothing to see here, move along please.

 

There's nothing like an educated mind to kill an argument between the ignorant.

 

I notice that the orders in the Crown Court were made by Mr Justice Nicol. The appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division was heard by Lord Justice Gross. I had lunch with Peter Gross on one occasion, and although he may seem like a funny little man he is in fact absolutely brilliant at solving these kinds of problems. I have no doubt he will find the right answer, whatever it is.

 

Well, if our Pete vouches for him, I say we just let Pete Gross crack on and keep democracy safe for us.

 

can anyone think of a scenario where a case should be kept secret? although it will eventually come out.

 

Where the methodology of collecting the evidence or the spies in place (in this case) are proving vital in other on-going investigations; that could save countless lives.

 

at some point the rights of society as a whole have to take precedence over the rights of a few individuals who are presumably either guilty or corrupt, exactly where you draw that line will always be controversial, however at some point that line needs to be drawn otherwise society as a whole will suffer