homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Secret trials in the UK (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Secret trials in the UK
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Story here

This has only come to light because an appeal against a case being heard wholly in private has been heard.

quote:
The court heard that AB and CD had been arrested "in high-profile circumstances" and faced allegations of the preparation of terrorist acts and possessing bomb-making instructions. (...) The Head of the Crown Prosecution Service's counter-terrorism team had claimed that if a decision was taken to hold the trial in open court, and to identify the defendants, it might have to abandon the prosecution
[Ultra confused]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I dont have a problem with trying them in secret. They need taking off the streets because they will be a danger to the public otherwise, and to try them in public will hamper national security.

No problem at all.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The BBC article claims that this sort secret trial is unprecedented, but that's not the case. I can understand why advocates of the idea don't want to cite historical precedent, though.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I dont have a problem with trying them in secret. They need taking off the streets because they will be a danger to the public otherwise, and to try them in public will hamper national security.

That's a pretty bold assertion, given that by definition you don't know who "they" are or why "they" are supposedly dangerous. That's a fairly remarkable amount of faith in the infallibility and honesty of the government.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064

 - Posted      Profile for The Rhythm Methodist   Email The Rhythm Methodist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No problem with that, at all. If they are innocent, they walk away without any lingering suspicion from the public. If they are guilty, a secret trial is far more charitable than anything they would have conferred on their intended victims.

Perhaps there are also good reasons for the case to be abandoned if made public: could be the safety of witnesses or informers, for example.

Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I dont have a problem with trying them in secret. They need taking off the streets because they will be a danger to the public otherwise, and to try them in public will hamper national security.

That's a pretty bold assertion, given that by definition you don't know who "they" are or why "they" are supposedly dangerous. That's a fairly remarkable amount of faith in the infallibility and honesty of the government.
Yes. I trust them more than I trust people who would let terrorists walk free on principle.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a fairly remarkable amount of faith in the infallibility and honesty of the government.

Yes. I trust them more than I trust people who would let terrorists walk free on principle.
Why bother with a trial then, given that you're already certain of "their" guilt and the government never makes mistakes about this sort of thing?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a fairly remarkable amount of faith in the infallibility and honesty of the government.

Yes. I trust them more than I trust people who would let terrorists walk free on principle.
Why bother with a trial then, given that you're already certain of "their" guilt and the government never makes mistakes about this sort of thing?
They are going to get a trial and that's fine. I just don't want it to damage our national security or to pander to those who would smirk if it did get damaged.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why bother with a trial then, given that you're already certain of "their" guilt and the government never makes mistakes about this sort of thing?

They are going to get a trial and that's fine.
That doesn't really answer the question. If you "know" the accused are guilty, even in the absence of any evidence, why bother with the time and expense of trial?

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I just don't want it to damage our national security or to pander to those who would smirk if it did get damaged.

You'd think the "trust us, national security is at risk in ways we can't tell you about" excuse would have worn a little thin lately as an explanation for why the government must be sheltered from accountability or scrutiny of any sort, but I guess not.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The good(ish) news is that the government doesn't get to decide whether a case is held in secret and goes unreported. Judges decide and they have a pretty good track record for standing up to government ministers, such as the attempts by numerous Home Secretaries to set aside parts of the Human Rights Act.

I still reckon it's a poor idea. We had some ad hoc justice in Northern Ireland and I don't think they helped in the long term.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know they are guilty, which is why they are going to be tried, to find out if they are or not.

Just not where people who enjoy the spectacle of our national security being damaged can watch.

I don't think the notion of damaging our national security should wear thin, nor of removing people from the streets if - IF - they are a threat to the public.

It's a balance and this seems an eminently sensible way of striking that balance.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whilst I wouldn't be against secret trials completely, there are all sorts of alarm bells ringing.

First of all, I would rather that we had a public debate about such matters BEFORE the government tried to push through a decision. Let the issues be discussed in general widely and let's evaluate the pros and cons. Then, and only then, can we make a decision about what is truly just.

Secondly, we need to have clear guidelines about when such trials can take place and under what conditions. Who decides? What are the criteria? How can such decisions be challenged?

The track record of the UK government (and the US and the French and....) does not give confidence that we should just leave it in their hands and trust them to "do the right thing". There needs to be a clear and independent evaluation of each occasion when a secret trial is requested.

One suggestion (off the top of my head) would be that such an evaluation should not be undertaken by the country concerned, but referred to an independent body - perhaps a friendly nation. Or perhaps a specialist group within the UN.

Denial of justice simply feeds the martyrdom complex of terrorists and their supporters. Surely, we have learned that by now, haven't we?

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The good(ish) news is that the government doesn't get to decide whether a case is held in secret and goes unreported. Judges decide and they have a pretty good track record for standing up to government ministers, such as the attempts by numerous Home Secretaries to set aside parts of the Human Rights Act.

Isn't the judiciary empowered by the state, and therefore a government entity? (This may be complicated in U.K. terminology where "government" can be either shorthand for "the state" or "the current ruling Parliamentary coalition").

One of the interesting conundrums for those facing trial by secret tribunal is the secrecy of the tribunal itself is an argument in favor of conviction. The presumption behind the secrecy is that revealing the evidence presented at trial to those outside the usual government system of classification and security clearances will damage national security. By definition the defendants in such trials are outside that system. So the state is left with the option of either requiring defendants to prove their innocence against secret evidence or be willing to imprison the accused even if acquitted until such time as the secrets revealed during trial are no longer considered important to national security*. There's a third option of just hoping that those acquitted will feel the need to keep the secrets of the government that just imprisoned them, but most states don't feel comfortable with that option.


--------------------
*I understand that several of the prisoners at Guantánamo who were eventually determined to be "wrong place at the wrong time" cases were still detained after that determination was made on the grounds that the conditions of their imprisonment at Guantánamo was classified and they couldn't be trusted not to reveal it if released.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I dont have a problem with trying them in secret. They need taking off the streets because they will be a danger to the public otherwise, and to try them in public will hamper national security.

No problem at all.

Should we add "If they are guilty" somewhere in there?

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Secret trials happen all the time in the Family Courts.

http://www.blanchardslaw.co.uk/blog/children-and-the-family-court-is-it-time-to-open-up-the-system-to-public-scrutiny/

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The obvious problem with secret trials for anyone is that the standard of justice involved is not publicly verifiable and therefore cannot be guaranteed as consistent with other such trials or with public trials.

For us to trust the outcome of a secret trial requires that we have the utmost faith in the honesty and competence of the judges, juries and legal representation involved, despite not knowing their identities. As yourself: do you trust all judges completely and equally?

Other possibilities come to mind as well. Suppose I read in the newspaper that so-and-so has been charged with a crime, and I then realize that although I have not been questioned by anyone, I happen to be in a position to provide the accused with an alibi. As the proceeding is public, I am in a position to come forward. If the proceeding is secret, I may not even know that this individual is under suspicion.

As I understand it, the usual preference is to acquit someone who is in fact guilty rather than to convict someone who is in fact innocent. The idea of a secret trial seem to me to be at odds with this preference.

Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Perhaps there are also good reasons for the case to be abandoned if made public: could be the safety of witnesses or informers, for example.

From the quote in the OP, emphasis mine:
quote:
The Head of the Crown Prosecution Service's counter-terrorism team had claimed that if a decision was taken to hold the trial in open court, and to identify the defendants, it might have to abandon the prosecution
In other words, the reason invoked is none of the ones The Rhythm Methodist outlines; it's that they do not want to reveal the identity of the defendants.

I'm having a hard time imagining why that might compromise the prosecution case.

And I don't buy the argument of security through obscurity.

[ 04. June 2014, 21:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't know they are guilty, which is why they are going to be tried, to find out if they are or not.

There are plenty of instances of prosecutors filtering evidence to defence lawyers so that they don't have access to the information that could be used to cast doubt (or even prove innocent) on the charges faced by their clients (often because the police are trying to cover their arses).

That some of these cases are brought to light is down to the open nature of these trials.

The instances in the US of secret trials where defence attorneys aren't even allowed to see the evidence against their clients would seem to end up perpetuating the same set of abuses. I have little reason to believe that it wouldn't end up being exactly the same over here.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
No problem with that, at all. If they are innocent, they walk away without any lingering suspicion from the public. If they are guilty, a secret trial is far more charitable than anything they would have conferred on their intended victims.

And how does anyone get to assess whether they are innocent, then?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Secret trials happen all the time in the Family Courts.

http://www.blanchardslaw.co.uk/blog/children-and-the-family-court-is-it-time-to-open-up-the-system-to-public-scrutiny/

That isn't a criminal matter, so calling it a 'trial' is a complete misnomer.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064

 - Posted      Profile for The Rhythm Methodist   Email The Rhythm Methodist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
And how does anyone get to assess whether they are innocent, then?
In exactly the same way as in a non-secret trial. I'm sure there will still be at least one judge, and perhaps a jury. In common with other trials, I expect evidence will be presented and a verdict reached. You know - the sort of thing that happens in courts every day, when people are trying to assess guilt or innocence.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
In common with other trials, I expect evidence will be presented and a verdict reached.

Why would you expect that? If the evidence is too sensitive to be revealed to the public, you'd think it would also be too sensitive to reveal to suspected terrorists.

States that try people in secret and anonymously have a very bad history.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Secret trials happen all the time in the Family Courts.

http://www.blanchardslaw.co.uk/blog/children-and-the-family-court-is-it-time-to-open-up-the-system-to-public-scrutiny/

That isn't a criminal matter, so calling it a 'trial' is a complete misnomer.
They do call them trials in Canada. Trial seems to be defined as being in a court room in an adversarial process with a judge deciding something with the force of law. They are not secret, but the names of the people involved cannot be publicized and judges do clear the court of spectators for some aspects of the proceedings, usually if the presence of others will inhibit the witnesses.

I am uncomfortable with any form of legal proceeding that is secret. I am also uncomfortable with fully public information about everything. There's an balance isn't there?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064

 - Posted      Profile for The Rhythm Methodist   Email The Rhythm Methodist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

quote:
In common with other trials, I expect evidence will be presented and a verdict reached.
Originally post by Croesus

quote:
Why would you expect that? If the evidence is too sensitive to be revealed to the public, you'd think it would also be too sensitive to reveal to suspected terrorists.
I think the clue is in the word 'trial'. A 'trial' rather implies there will be evidence, and that someone will present this evidence to someone else....with a view that a verdict may be reached.

Should there be reason to withhold specific information or details from the suspects, I cannot see why this would affect the normal process of evidence being presented to those who will judge the issue...or prevent conclusions being reached. I would expect that to happen irrespective of any special arrangements....and it will therefore still be a trial.

You may have misgivings about the secrecy involved, and I wouldn't personally welcome a general move towards closed sessions. I would assume someone feels they have very good reasons for this departure from standard procedure.

Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I think the clue is in the word 'trial'. A 'trial' rather implies there will be evidence, and that someone will present this evidence to someone else....with a view that a verdict may be reached.

How this works in practice can very important. The adversarial process is not some quaint technicality from a bygone day, it's a rather critical part of the process for reasons I wouldn't think needed to be explained.

But apparently I do. Consider the relationship between a prosecutor (someone) and a grand jury (a group of someone elses). Prosecutors present evidence and the grand jury decides whether that evidence is sufficient to issue an indictment. This process is considered insufficient for determining guilt or innocence, mostly due to the lack of an adversarial advocate on behalf of the accused. Hearing only one side of the story is considered insufficient to reach any kind of certainty.

In other words, a trial should consist of more than simply "someone . . . present[ing] this evidence to someone else".

quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Should there be reason to withhold specific information or details from the suspects, I cannot see why this would affect the normal process of evidence being presented to those who will judge the issue...or prevent conclusions being reached. I would expect that to happen irrespective of any special arrangements....and it will therefore still be a trial.

Most trials in the Western tradition allow the suspect to mount a defense. This is premised on the idea that the accused know both what they're accused of and the evidence against them.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I would assume someone feels they have very good reasons for this departure from standard procedure.

Someone always feels they have very good reasons. That's why we have no colloquialism about the road to Hell being paved with intentional malice.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064

 - Posted      Profile for The Rhythm Methodist   Email The Rhythm Methodist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Croesos:

quote:
Most trials in the Western tradition allow the suspect to mount a defense. This is premised on the idea that the accused know both what they're accused of and the evidence against them.

You seem to be assuming that there will be matters of substance withheld from the accused - things which will render them less able to defend themselves. I can't extrapolate that from what I know - which amounts only to the trial being held in closed session. Perhaps you have grounds to believe the suspects will be deprived of their right to mount an effective defence, in which case you're better informed than I am. But if your knowledge is no more extensive than mine, then it would seem rather speculative to assume that a secret trial is somehow unfair to defendants.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by Croesos:
quote:
Most trials in the Western tradition allow the suspect to mount a defense. This is premised on the idea that the accused know both what they're accused of and the evidence against them.

You seem to be assuming that there will be matters of substance withheld from the accused - things which will render them less able to defend themselves. I can't extrapolate that from what I know - which amounts only to the trial being held in closed session.
In closed session for reasons of national security. In other words, it has been argued that the facts to be presented at trial are simply too dangerous to be known by the general public.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Perhaps you have grounds to believe the suspects will be deprived of their right to mount an effective defence, in which case you're better informed than I am.

Just a fairly simple line of reasoning I've already explained. If revealing the evidence to be presented is a danger to national security, presenting it to the defendants would be a similar danger since, if they're acquitted, it would be difficult for the state to guarantee their silence. The same logic that would apply to the public at large would seem to apply to the defendants.

Of course, some information considered dangerous to national security is already known to the defendants. Specifically their identities.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, some information considered dangerous to national security is already known to the defendants. Specifically their identities.

Which are, apparently, as I keep saying, the reason invoked for not having the trial in public.

Can somebody more awake than me offer a plausible national-security-like line of reasoning for not revealing the identities of the defendants?

[ 05. June 2014, 04:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At a guess - if the identities of the defendants were made public, that could reveal to a terrorist organisation:

a) That their cover was completely blown. Hence, as long as identities are concealed, it may be possible to find out more about the organisation and its plans, rather than spook them into going completely underground.

b) That some of its members are double-agents who have betrayed them. Hence, as long as identities are concealed, the double agents can continue to work and possibly thwart still more atrocities.

(I've always wanted a legitimate reason to use the word "thwart")

I think it has to be something along these lines - that concealing identities is believed to be necessary in order that action against the terrorist group can continue.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Can somebody more awake than me offer a plausible national-security-like line of reasoning for not revealing the identities of the defendants?

Well, I think we can safely assume that any co-conspirators of the defendants know that they've been arrested too.

How about the suggestion that these people were caught by a double agent, who will not be put on trial, so revealing the identities of the men on trial will allow people to determine the identity of the government agent?

Or one of the accused is a close relative of a senior politician, and Britain would be less trusted by its allies if they knew that a terrorist's relative was reading all the shared intelligence information.

A bit far-fetched, maybe?

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the judiciary were more representative I'd be happy. Until they are, I'm not. It's a lot of old male lawyers (who aren't good enough at law to become QC's) who are deciding what we can and can't know about.

There may be issues of security: there may be no cover ups going on - but recent history of judges, courts and hearings (e.g Hillsborough) suggest that there's enough doubt to have it all seriously questioned. Even at the lowest level of courts (Magistrates) cock ups on all sorts of level are an everyday event.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, the vast majority of trials are defacto secret. If you're sufficiently interested, you could probably find out who has been tried at your local Sheriffs Court (or equivalent) in the last month. But, in the majority of those cases the only people present would be court officials, lawyers, a jury, some witnesses, the defendants and maybe a family member or two. They don't get reported in the media, simply because they're of very little public interest. The absence of members of the media in the court doesn't make the trial any less fair.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If the judiciary were more representative I'd be happy. Until they are, I'm not. It's a lot of old male lawyers (who aren't good enough at law to become QC's) who are deciding what we can and can't know about.

I can't think when last a barrister was made a judge of the Supreme Court here without first having been a QC or SC*, and there have been very few of the District Court either.
From memory, it's a long. long time since any barrister was appointed a High Court judge in England without first having been a QC either.

*Since 1993, there have been no appointments as QC in NSW; all have been SC instead.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you Oscar and Leorning. I'm not sure I find these explanations reassuring, though.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The absence of members of the media in the court doesn't make the trial any less fair.

Not in and of itself, but the potential for a journalist to be sitting there does. Trials are conducted in the awareness that they are a public event, and that makes all the difference in my view.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There will be representatives of the public present, the members of the jury. They will be doing the job a jury always does, hear the evidence and consider that, and decide whether the prosecution has presented a case that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

To what extent does the presence of other members of the public in the court make a trial more fair? Whether that's a real presence, or a virtual presence through media reporting?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There will be representatives of the public present, the members of the jury. They will be doing the job a jury always does, hear the evidence and consider that, and decide whether the prosecution has presented a case that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

There may be for now, but IIRC, trial by jury was suspended in Northern Ireland for cases connected to "The Troubles".
quote:

To what extent does the presence of other members of the public in the court make a trial more fair? Whether that's a real presence, or a virtual presence through media reporting?

The very fact that the press can attend must put counsel, court staff the judge and everyone in the court on their mettle.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There will be representatives of the public present, the members of the jury. They will be doing the job a jury always does, hear the evidence and consider that, and decide whether the prosecution has presented a case that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

To what extent does the presence of other members of the public in the court make a trial more fair? Whether that's a real presence, or a virtual presence through media reporting?

In the case in hand, one wonders what the future of the jurors will be. Ordinary members of the public will have become privy, it is apparently being argued, to terribly sensitive information. They may not be able to discuss their deliberations, but are they to be bound over not to discuss the trial at all, ever after? That seems hard to justify, let alone enforce.

The point of members of the public (not necessarily the media) being present is that the whole proceedings can be seen to be conducted properly by independent observers. In a trial like this, the opportunity for the jury to be completely intimidated by the prosecution appears to be a very real risk.

(This is one of my more secular reasons for being a prison chaplain [which in France does not make me part of the prison staff]. I am an independent observer who can turn up pretty much anywhere in the prison uninvited. I fulfil a general undertaking not to disclose sensitive information, but I'm convinced that the very fact I and others like me can have this kind of access makes a major contribution to preventing abuses).

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There will be representatives of the public present, the members of the jury. They will be doing the job a jury always does, hear the evidence and consider that, and decide whether the prosecution has presented a case that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

There may be for now, but IIRC, trial by jury was suspended in Northern Ireland for cases connected to "The Troubles".
You seem to be suggesting a "slippery slope" argument. We had a recent thread here on the logical fallacies presented by that argument.

But, I agree it could be seen as a progression of prior practice. It is quite common for parts of trials to be conducted with the media excluded, for example to protect the identity of witnesses.

The protection of the identity of the defendants is a new step, and one that does require the entire trial to be held in secret. Though, there are a fair few men who have been acquitted of rape who would have probably liked their trials to be secret.

There is a major debate to be had, and I agree with some earlier comments that it should have been had prior to any particular trial being made private, about protecting the reputation of people who are "innocent until proven guilty". A trial is a very public exercise in dirt flinging, and we all know that dirt sticks. There is, of course, a spectrum relating to severity/perception of charges and the profile of the accused. Someone not in the public eye getting charged and acquitted of a minor offence does no harm, the same person getting charged and acquitted of a sexual offence involving children could destroy their life. A public figure charged of a crime is reported widely, and if found not guilty that earlier coverage is still there - and, often the reporting will reveal personal details that they would prefer not to be public. Wind that up to public figures charged with serious offences and that could ruin someone even if found not guilty.

I think there may be a case for giving defendants the right to a secret trial if they want it (they may of course want the chance to make their innocence publicly demonstrated). Of course, secrecy need not be maintained if there's a guilty verdict.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
one wonders what the future of the jurors will be. Ordinary members of the public will have become privy, it is apparently being argued, to terribly sensitive information. They may not be able to discuss their deliberations, but are they to be bound over not to discuss the trial at all, ever after? That seems hard to justify, let alone enforce.

Jurors are already bound over not to discuss the trial or their deliberations. Even letting it be known what case they deliberated on would be contempt of court. This jury will not be the first to hear sensitive evidence presented in closed court, they won't be the last.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think there may be a case for giving defendants the right to a secret trial if they want it

I couldn't agree less. Trials are public by nature. In my experience all you would achieve here is immunity for the rich.

One ongoing annoyance for me is the way my local paper reports criminal cases, sometimes naming the defendant and sometimes not. In my observation, the better off the defendant, the less likely they are to be named (unless they are a really public figure), irrespective of whether they are found guilty or innocent. If you're going to name some, you should name all.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even letting it be known what case they deliberated on would be contempt of court. This jury will not be the first to hear sensitive evidence presented in closed court, they won't be the last.

If this is true, then it's all the more reason for the non-involved public to be able to attend. What kind of justice is it if the entire proceedings - detail of accusations, evidence, identity of the parties, length of the hearing, sentencing - is secret?

Bear in mind that we wouldn't even know this trial existed if an appeal against this secrecy hadn't been lodged, and reporting restrictions on the appeal lifted. I find that chilling.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Secret trials happen all the time in the Family Courts.

http://www.blanchardslaw.co.uk/blog/children-and-the-family-court-is-it-time-to-open-up-the-system-to-public-scrutiny/

That isn't a criminal matter, so calling it a 'trial' is a complete misnomer.
What a curious approach to make. And, I'm afraid, quite insupportable.

It involves barristers making legal arguments and judges deciding on them, and the consequences (such as children removed from families) are enforced by the police.

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
It involves barristers making legal arguments and judges deciding on them, and the consequences (such as children removed from families) are enforced by the police.

I agree that there is a problem with this sort of thing happening behind closed (or semi-closed) doors, and whether the fact the child is a minor makes a difference can be debated, but - rightly or wrongly - there is a precedent for this in a way which, in modern times, I don't think there is where no minors are involved.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
one wonders what the future of the jurors will be. Ordinary members of the public will have become privy, it is apparently being argued, to terribly sensitive information. They may not be able to discuss their deliberations, but are they to be bound over not to discuss the trial at all, ever after? That seems hard to justify, let alone enforce.

Jurors are already bound over not to discuss the trial or their deliberations. Even letting it be known what case they deliberated on would be contempt of court. This jury will not be the first to hear sensitive evidence presented in closed court, they won't be the last.
Besides which, the UK has an Official Secrets Act that would ban all present at the trial - defendants and jurors included - from revealing what they heard during it. Doing so could carry a penalty of up to two years imprisonment on top of any penalties for contempt of court.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Secret trials happen all the time in the Family Courts.

http://www.blanchardslaw.co.uk/blog/children-and-the-family-court-is-it-time-to-open-up-the-system-to-public-scrutiny/

That isn't a criminal matter, so calling it a 'trial' is a complete misnomer.
What a curious approach to make. And, I'm afraid, quite insupportable.

It involves barristers making legal arguments and judges deciding on them, and the consequences (such as children removed from families) are enforced by the police.

You'll have to provide evidence of police involvement.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understand that the police will enforce custody etc orders of the Family Court. You may remember a case a couple of years ago where the order was that the children remain in Aust with their father; the police found the children and restored them to his custody, leaving the wife to return to Italy. That's but a very public example of what happens on a daily basis.

Cases concerning children are in a rather special category, with steps taken to protect their privacy. But the decisions are available on the net so that a judge's reasoning is exposed to public view. It's just that letters or pseudonyms are used to protect the children. The same often happens in criminal cases of rape or child sexual abuse. The hearings are open but names are avoided.

Finally, there are frequently decisions made appearing on the net as "decision restricted" or some such. Those are decisions suppressed until a case has been completed. Usually they are decisions on the admissibility of evidence, and it is better that they remain suppressed until a verdict is returned in the trial before publication is made.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Understood. And as I said, all this is different to the case in hand (or at least what I can establish about it), in which as things stand there is no guarantee of anything ever being made public.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you're sufficiently interested, you could probably find out who has been tried at your local Sheriffs Court (or equivalent) in the last month. But, in the majority of those cases the only people present would be court officials, lawyers, a jury, some witnesses, the defendants and maybe a family member or two.

AIUI there are quite a few people who attend court as a hobby. Presumably they have time on their hands and prefer to use it this way.

I have the impression that it is relatively rare for no one to be in the courtroom who has no business there.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Secret trials present an added difficulty for any legal system based on precedent. If precedent is secret, you've effectively created a system of secret law, where the public is kept deliberately unaware of what laws bind them.

There's a reason anonymous detention and secret trials were some of the more favored tools of recent history's most infamous regimes. Is there any functional difference between the state having the power to hold someone anonymously and try them in secret and the state having the power to simply "disappear" people?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Secret trials happen all the time in the Family Courts.

That isn't a criminal matter, so calling it a 'trial' is a complete misnomer.
What a curious approach to make. And, I'm afraid, quite insupportable.

It involves barristers making legal arguments and judges deciding on them, and the consequences (such as children removed from families) are enforced by the police.

You'll have to provide evidence of police involvement.
Sorry, Orfeo, I don't quite understand the point you're making here. Can you clarify?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools