Secret courts bill expected to be passed

Powers to allow court cases involving national security to be heard in secret are expected to be approved by MPs today (good old MPs, they never let you down) after the spy agencies warned opponents of the dangers of blocking them

Labour will not oppose the Justice and Security Bill in a Commons vote later despite previously being critics of it, a senior party source said.

Some Tory and Liberal Democrat backbench MPs are still likely to rebel but many others have now changed their stance.

The Daily Telegraph understands representatives of the security and intelligence agencies met with senior Labour figures and even some backbenchers to argue for the legislation.

They warned that intelligence sharing with international partners and the reputation of the Britain spy agencies were at risk.

Julian Brazier, the Tory MP and former SAS reservist, warned the special forces could be equally damaged.

Proposed powers in the bill would allow evidence in some civil cases involving national security to be heard behind closed doors so sensitive material can be disclosed.

The aim is for the Government to avoid having to settle out of court to avoid such information being exposed.

Claimants would not be allowed to hear the secret evidence against them.

There had been strong opposition to the plans and Kenneth Clarke, the Cabinet minister responsible for it, has been forced to make a series of amendments.

The Government last night received support from former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf, who said changes tabled by Cabinet minister Kenneth Clarke would ensure the operation of such cases was under the "complete control" of the judge in the case.

In a letter to The Times, he wrote: "The Bill now ensures that we will retain our standards of general justice, while also putting an end to the blindfolding of judges in this small number of cases."

However, official estimates by the Government warn the system could result in a net loss of £1 million over the next decade due to increased legal costs from fighting cases.

It emerged yesterday that more than £30 million of public money has been spent on settling claims out of court and tens of millions more could be awarded in some 20 further cases that are pending.

Mr Clarke warned that some of the money could be finding its way in to the hand of terrorists.

He said the UK is in danger of becoming a magnate for such claims to be brought.

“Not surprisingly, people have cottoned on to the fact that the British courts are the only place where you can entertain this, so we are slowly getting an increasing number.

“If we don’t do something about it, they’re going to build up; we’re going to pay out more and more money, and the reputation of our security services is going to suffer.”

He added: “At the moment we’re not able to defend these cases, we just pay up to who knows who.

“We are paying out millions of pounds. There’s a very real risk that some of this money is finding its way to terrorists.”

Clare Algar, Reprieve's executive director, said: "Contrary to what ministers have claimed, these secret courts will also cost millions of pounds more than they save.

"Almost nothing that has been said by Ken Clarke in defence of these dangerous plans can be believed – MPs must vote against them next week, or they will be sacrificing long-held freedoms solely to spare the blushes of their political masters."

Let's face it, when this goes through, they can have 'courts' on any bloody thing they like.
I caught RT news earlier this evening and they were reporting that since 2002 British citizens have been having their passports revoked on reasons of 'risk to national security/terrorism'. But what is now being looked into is how some of these people have since been killed. Like some sort of black ops right under our noses and flaunted as being for our national security.

So here comes 1984....albeit 30 years late folks

Sleep well

Jane

Did you have any inkling that this policy was being dreamt up by civil servants when you had access to such information, WUB?

I hadn't heard of this until today, although nothing surprises you any more, does it?

Britain is on the brink of tyranny. The Justice and Security Bill, if it becomes law, will enable judicial trials to be held in secret, and it will even be illegal to tell anyone about them. The bill has now gone through all stages in the House of Commons, and will now go to the House of Lords for consideration. In other words, it’s nearly there (services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/justiceandsecurity.html).

The bill’s sponsor in the Commons is Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke, who is widely believed to be on the steering committee of the highly secretive Bilderberg meetings. In a foreward to a consultation document, he explains that the purpose of the bill is to enable the government to defend itself against civil claims, with claimants typically seeking significant amounts in damages, but where the facts of the case turn on highly sensitive information (consultation.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/justiceandsecurity/).

But it seems that’s just the gloss. Richard Cottrell, in his book ‘Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe’ (progressivepress.com/book-listing/gladio...-dagger-heart-europe) wrote a lot about this bill. At the time it had been rejected, but he rightly predicted that it would return. He wrote to me: “The Justice and Security Bill has been around for some years, since 7/7 hardly by co-incidence. It proposes that secret courts will inquire into any matters concerning individuals or events that the authorities decide they want to keep secret. This will apply in the case of the as yet unheld inquests on those blamed for 7/7.

“It was also to apply to living accused persons who would be denied under this Orwellian draft the right to represent themselves or have their own lawyers represent them. Nor will they be allowed to know what they are accused of. In the Soviet Union this was perfectly normal. In the place of legal representation the state will appoint Special Advocates who will not be under any responsibility to represent the accused, or explain to that person of what he is accused, and nor will they be under any responsibility to offer a defence.

“The Bill was savaged by the Lords, but returned to the Commons with all the Lords’ amendments struck out. On the day of the vote on gay marriages it slipped through the vote in the select committee with the vote of one backwoods Ulsterman rushed in at the last minute. (The vote was held at the same [time] as members were in the lobbies voting on the gay marriage Bill). … This law when passed, as it will be, can then be applied to all and any offence, even as lowly as a traffic accident. Accused persons will never be told of what they are charged and of course it is very unlikely they would be found ‘not guilty.’”

The British press is now very quiet on this, though the Daily Mail published an article on 10 February headed ‘Last week MPs revived the corpse of the ‘Secret Justice’ Bill. Here we spell out the full terrifying implications of life in… Secret Britain’ (www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-22763...–Secret-Britain.html). Interestingly, their sister paper, The Mail on Sunday, is about to take legal action to make public a secret judgement issued in an Afghan alleged torture case two years ago, which resulted from an earlier form of secret hearing, now deemed illegal by the Supreme Court (www.leighday.co.uk/News/2013/January-201...ge-by-Mail-on-Sunday). Also, political campaigner Chris Mullin gave a warning in The Guardian website on 28 January, headed ‘Justice and security bill: last chance to back away from secret justice’ (www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jan/28/justi...ance-secret-evidence).

And now Big Brother Watch has launched a campaign, asking people to write to their MP (www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2013/03/...rity-bill-today.html). Someone commented “What’s the point?”. OK, write to your local newspaper then.

Whistleblowers gagged – and there’s worse to come

Another piece of legislation which could make it difficult to expose possible government crimes is a proposed amendment to the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, as proposed by the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking. This would make it easier for the police to seize confidential material from journalists, and it would weaken protection for whistleblowers (www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/whistl...ss-new-police-powers). A leading barrister warned of a potential breach of European human rights law, the article states. But now the Government intends to do away with European human rights law (www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/ma...y-human-rights-stunt). It looks as if the question of UK membership of the EU is being used as cover for this.

An editorial in The Guardian four days later drew attention to the general vulnerability of whistleblowers, as in the case of a former chief executive in the National Health Service, Gary Walker, who had been told that he would have to pay back any compensation payment arising from his dismissal if he spoke out (www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/fe...ources-law-editorial). But the problem was bigger than that. ‘NHS spends £15million (the same as 750 nurses’ salaries) on gagging 600 whistleblowers’ announced the Daily Mail (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282600...-whistleblowers.html), saying that this had cost the lives of 1 200 patients. The new legislation will make it even more difficult to blow the whistle, even when many lives are at stake.

“Democracy cannot work when secrecy exceeds its proper limits”, states the Guardian editorial, adding that hospitals, banks, corporations, meat producers and police forces alike must be open to scrutiny. I would add even humble membership associations to that list; that is something we can all do something about. Whenever we are met with indignation, having asked such basic questions as “Have these accounts been audited?”, “What is the basis of your proposal?”, or “How much money do we have?”, or in trying to raise perfectly legisimate issues, we need to stand up to such negative reactions. You’re standing up not just for your cause, but for your just cause of democracy.

the Advocate General has the power to refer Scottish Parliament Bills to the Supreme Court for decisions on their legislative competence.

www.globalresearch.ca/orwellian-secret-c...k-of-tyranny/5325994

And just in case you had any doubts about the EDL guess how much noise they are making about non-Sharia secret courts?