Secret Evidence Ruling

[ALawson]

Good to see that the Law Lords have made a ruling about the use of secret evidence in this case.

While I can see why the Home Office want it all kept secret to protect sources I think it is a step to far.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8092763.stm

What are the PH thoughts? Should we jeopardise our intelligence sources or trust those who say any one of us can be taken to court without seeing the evidence?

[Jasandjules]

A tricky one.

Perhaps having security cleared defence counsel who could see this evidence and then defend their client?

[ln1234]

Would you want to know what crime you are accussed of, or what evidence is used to convict you?

If local councils can use anti terrorist powers to spy on what you're putting in your bin, or whether you indeed live at an address for a school catchment area, then what would stop any authority abusing these 'secrecy' powers too?

Sorry Mr. Smith but we're having to lock you up for 3 years for a crime we can't tell you about, and with evidence that is secret.

Lovely.

[AshVX220]

Jasandjules said:

A tricky one.

Perhaps having security cleared defence counsel who could see this evidence and then defend their client?

The defence council would have to be appointed to the defendant by the courts in that case, and hence not really totally on the clients side (possibly), or the defendant would want there own lawyer to represent them, this lawyer could then obviously be the lawyer of choice for all potential terrorists and before you know it, such groups have a pretty good understanding of how evidence against them is gathered.

It is a very tricky one, in my view the only safe way of doing such things is to have an entire jury of security cleared independant people. To assess the evidence, presented, but as you say, if the defence lot can't see it, how can they present their case.

It's very worrying that any of us can be arrested and given such a control order for pretty much anything and the "national security/secrecy" card being played to ultimately stop any possible opposition to it.

Protecting sources and methods is the prime reason why classifications are given to most intelligence products, but it can be hugely abused.

[Jasandjules]

ln1234 said:

Sorry Mr. Smith but we're having to lock you up for 3 years for a crime we can't tell you about, and with evidence that is secret.

There is (unless I am mistaken) a hearing where the judge sees the evidence and the prosecution put the case as to the effect upon the security services in the event the information was made public. So someone makes a decision on it being in the national interest (judiciary), it does not fall purely to the state to make that decision (again, unless I am mistaken).

Perhaps if there was simply a select number of counsel who were security cleared, and they could be called upon to either defend or prosecute.