The Guardian today covers the leak of two versions of a "highly sensitive military witness statement" which illustrates "the dangers of government plans to expand secret courts".
The document concerns the details of a case involving an Afghan detainee who was arrested by British forces and later handed over to Afghan forces who, he claims, beat him "on his feet and legs with metal rods until he was unable to stand."
The Guardian states that at the time the case was heard in 2010, it "was one of the few examples of a secret hearing, known as a closed material procedure (CMP), being used in the civil courts". The two versions of the text, which you can see here and here, illustrate how significant information on the detainee's case was initially withheld on the authority of the High Court. Redacting information was permitted until the practice was subsequently judged illegal by the Supreme Court. According to the Guardian, the Government's proposal to extend secret trials as detailed in the Justice and Security Bill, was in direct response to this ruling.
The Guardian states that "the partially suppressed version cuts out crucial details about torture allegedly being inflicted [on the detainee]". It continues, "lawyers who fought the case claim the two versions demonstrate how politically embarrassing evidence can be concealed under the veil of protecting national security."
The Guardian adds that the way that the evidence was treated by the High Court "challenges repeated assurances by the Cabinet Office minister without portfolio, Ken Clarke, that the justice and security bill will not result in anything that is currently disclosed being withheld in future."
Shortly after the case concerning the Afghan detainee, another Afghan detainee, Serdar Mohammed, also arrested by British soldiers and transferred to Afghan security services, claimed he was tortured and it was the legal proceedings which followed his transfer that led to the release of the full MoD witness statement.
The Justice and Security Bill was defeated in the House of Lords late last year after the Lords imposed safeguards, including removing the secretary of state's right to apply for a secret hearing and giving judges more discretion on deciding whether hearings should be held in secret. The Bill will soon move into the committee stage in the House of Commons.
Under the proposals, victims and their lawyers would be prevented from seeing the evidence against them and would be represented instead by 'special advocates'. Critics say that this would unfairly advantage the government over the claimant. The government claims that judges and not ministers would decide on the application of CPMs, however this has been challenged by the shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, who has argued that the Government's claim of the process being "judge-led" is "positively misleading".
Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate and former lawyer, Jo Shaw, who has led her party's opposition to secret courts said that "the two statements shockingly demonstrate exactly what many … have been worried about: coverups made possible by secret courts in the illiberal, unnecessary and unfair justice and security bill."
She added that, "What was being kept from the public eye in this case was not information which would threaten the life of security services personnel, or the security of the UK. It was information which was embarrassing to the security services and to the government, because it showed the knowledge of UK officers about torture in Afghanistan gaols run by our allies.
"Covering up difficult or embarrassing facts about complicity in torture or rendition helps no one. To ensure there is no UK involvement with such wrongdoing in future we need open justice, not secret courts. It is equally appalling that Ken Clarke has refused to rule out using secret courts in claims brought by injured service personnel, or in claims for habeas corpus."
From the moment that the government's proposal to extend the mandate for secret trials surfaced, there has been strong speculation that the proposals have less to do with security and more to do with preventing and mitigating damage done to the Government's compliance with and reputation for adhering to treaty obligations on the treatment of prisoners and on torture.
The revelations in today's Guardian will serve to further entrench suspicions that the Government's notion of 'national security' is clouded by its own self-interest and fails to take into account the public interest in open justice. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights said of the bill, it is a "radical departure from fundamental common law traditions". Whether the bill survives passage through both Houses of Parliament remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment