Three terror suspects whose freedom is restricted by control orders have won a legal battle in the House of Lords over the use of secret evidence.
Nine Law Lords unanimously ruled it was unfair individuals should be kept in ignorance of the case against them. (...)
Ruling in favour of the men Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the senior Law Lord on the case, said: "A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him.
"If the wider public are to have confidence in the justice system, they need to be able to see that justice is done rather than being asked to take it on trust.
"The best way of producing a fair trial is to ensure that a party to it has the fullest information of both the allegations that are made against him and the evidence relied upon in support of those allegations."
Lord Hope of Craighead added: "The consequences of a successful terrorist attack are likely to be so appalling that there is an understandable wish to support the system that keeps those who are considered to be most dangerous out of circulation for as long as possible.
"But the slow creep of complacency must be resisted. If the rule of law is to mean anything, it is in cases such as these that the court must stand by [legal] principle. It must insist that the person affected be told what is alleged against him."
[The above is an extract from a report on the BBC News website. The full text can be read here. The judges' opinions in the case can be read here. The actual decision was made in the context of control orders against terrorist suspects. But it clearly has implications for Government claims of public interest immunity, and the "special advocate" system, in cases such as that of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The decision is a highly authoritative one. Nine Lords of Appeal sat on it (the normal quorum is five) and they were unanimous.]
So, as we appraoch the end of the second year since the SCCRC recommended Megrahi's case be reviewed as there may have been a miscarriage of justice, we are, in reality, no further forward than that day in June 2007 in determining the validity of the evidence as presented by the investigators at Zeist and the courts final judgement and conviction.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, during these same two years, we also endure the deceit and double dealing involving the British government in it's 'memorandum of understanding' including the much denied PTA and it's relevance to Mr Megrahi. Two years of successful manipulation of due process and transparency of the democratic justice system. The, simply put, lying and liars that can quite clearly be attributed the the British government and specifically the Foreign secretary in their cover up of complicity in torture on suspects in the 'war on terror' and the concentration camp known as 'Guantanamo Bay', whilst denying legitimate evidence presented to the courts.
Yesterday, we see yet another example of the methods and steps that our 'democratic' government will take in order to render opaque the 'justice and truth' that is the foundation of any 'democratic' society.
We do not live in a democracy where trust, freedom, the rule of law, individual liberty and justice are the fundamental principles adhered to by the governemnt of the day. We do not live in a democracy when the government not only abuses it's elected mandate, but finds itself with not only an unelected prime minister, but his government is now the most undemocratic since Lord Salisbury 120 years ago - with 7 of his ministers unelected members of the house of Lords!
The UK, not just any old democracy, probably the worst example of democracy in the world.