Critics say it should be judges not ministers who have the final say on what can be heard in public
The former head of the judiciary, Lord Woolf, has thrown his support behind plans to allow more civil courts to examine secret intelligence in private.
Later on Monday, MPs from all sides will try to force the government to introduce more safeguards before these so-called secret courts can be used.
Ministers want sensitive evidence to be used in trials without UK or foreign intelligence sources being exposed.
Critics say this would threaten open justice.
Those opposed to the proposals also believe they could enable allegations about the mistreatment of terror suspects to be covered up.
'Standards of justice'The government has introduced more safeguards to legislation currently being scrutinised by Parliament, ensuring that judges and not ministers decide when these so called secret courts are used.
And the concessions have been welcomed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who sits as a crossbencher in the House of Lords.
In a letter to The Times he says the government's plans will retain "the standards of general justice" while ensuring that all sides can put their case.
But, the BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said, Labour and other MPs want further changes.
In a series of votes in the House of Commons later, they will push for secret courts to be used only as a last resort when national security outweighs the need for open justice. Ministers say this would mean no trial would ever be held in closed session.
Defending the plans in December, Prime Minister David Cameron said they would apply in a small number of terrorism-related cases which would "simply not be heard" in court otherwise. "We're not talking about closing a bit of justice that previously was open," he said.
The government is concerned that millions of pounds have had to be be spent settling claims which it was prevented from challenging successfully, because that would have involved revealing secret intelligence in open court.
But the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights has said the proposals - which would mean some defendants would not hear all the evidence against them - mark a radical departure from the British tradition of fair and open justice and the case for change has not been made persuasively.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét