Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, Amendment 69, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is one of a group of three, and our names are also attached to Amendment 69ZB. I will pass the baton to him—appropriately in this Olympic week—for the second amendment in a minute.

The group of amendments is concerned with Clause 10, the general provision about Section 6 proceedings, and subsection (2), which is about rules of court relating to Section 6 proceedings. Paragraph (b) says:

“enabling or requiring the proceedings to be determined without a hearing”.

My amendment seeks to leave out those words.

When my noble and learned friend winds up this debate, he may say that this is just a case of avoiding expense where no hearing is needed. If so, I understand the purpose, but I do not entirely support it or agree with it. Carried to an extreme, this would deprive the special advocate and/or the claimant of any opportunity to engage to any extent in this part of the procedure. We are talking here about closed material proceedings—secret hearings—about which there may be public concern.

I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to explain why the interests of transparency and open justice do not command the idea that some hearing, however formal, formulaic or brief, would be appropriate. In particular, I hope that he will explain why the word “require” should appear here; I understand why “enable” should be included, but requiring proceedings to be determined without a hearing seems a step too far. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 69ZB, but before that I comment that in previous Committee sittings on the Bill, the Government have had hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of free legal advice—some of it contradictory, but advice has been there. They are not going to get any from me because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I am not a lawyer, so I tread tentatively along this path.

Amendment 69ZB is somewhat more complicated than the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to which my name is also attached. I understand that it is a well preserved tradition that in common law there are rules against the admission of hearsay evidence, inexpert opinion evidence and other unreliable forms of. However, I also understand that in recent years there has been a move away from those rules, because it is now easier for evidence to be challenged and the trial judge can, with the benefit of that challenge, assess how much weight to give to the evidence.

The difficulty is that, in a CMP regime, the judge cannot assess the reliability of unchallenged evidence; he is disabled from doing that. The public and the excluded party need to be reassured that the state will be permitted only to allow private evidence to deprive the citizen of a verdict if that evidence is deemed reliable by objective standards. That is my first point.

Secondly, there is a duty of frankness on the Secretary of State. The provisions in proposed new subsections (6)(b) and (f) do no more than ensure that an excluded citizen will get the same protection as is usually afforded to an absent party in the High Court—one might refer to ex parte proceedings, and so on. It would be unreasonable for the Secretary of State not to make such full and frank disclosure to the court when he is obtaining the huge advantage of a CMP.

The material must be relevant to the following matters: any issue in the case; the question of whether any evidence is admissible; and, in the case of hearsay statement, whether it was obtained by torture and whether it was accurately recorded. Next, there is the reliability of the evidence: whether the source was subjected to threats or bribes to induce him or her to give information. Then, as regards witnesses, there is the existence of lines of inquiry or names of witnesses. Given the disadvantage faced by the special advocate in challenging the state’s case, the state should give any special advocate the leads it has. That echoes the traditional common-law rule—I think it is known as the old Peruvian Guano case—which obliges the party to disclose lines of inquiry in any civil litigation. Finally, there is any evidence relevant to whether the CMP is necessary at all. The need for that disclosure is self-explanatory.

Proposed new subsection (6)(b) prohibits the Secretary of State from redacting parts of documents disclosed to the special advocate. After all, special advocates are already security cleared. There can be no justification based on security risk or privacy to suppress parts of otherwise relevant documents from those within the security ring or circle. If part of the document is relevant, the entire document should surely be seen so that everything can be read in its context. Quotations out of context may not be meaningful.

Then there is the question of banning evidence obtained by torture or cruelty. Evidence should not be admitted unless the court is convinced that it was not procured by torture or other cruel treatment. There is a danger that statements from persons in detention abroad may have been obtained in this way. Given that there is already a ban laid down by the Supreme Court on using statements obtained by torture, and that only the Government would have access to information about how statements were obtained, surely it is only fair that the burden of proof should rest upon the Government to show how such statements were obtained when they seek to use them in evidence. The excluded party would have no ability to make such inquiries.