Law and Rights
Previous post 10th June - A TOTALLY secret trial ?
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), having taken time to consider the case, has given its DECISION - HERE (pdf 7 pages). JUDGMENTS are to follow at a later date and there is to be an OPEN judgment, a PRIVATE judgment and an EX PARTE judgment [12].
The Court of Appeal stressed that it did not merely "review" the decision of Nicol J but had made an independent decision based on the material before it. The material included certificates from the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary together with supporting schedules of material [10].
The CORE of the trial could be held
in camera [14] but a number of significant matters should be in open court [16]. In para 14, the Court of Appeal referred to there being 'a significant risk - at the very least, a serious possibility - that the administration of justice would be frustrated were the trial to be conducted in open court.' That does not appear to be a particularly demanding test for determining when departure from a 'fundamental principle of the common law' [2] may be departed from.
In open court may be: the swearing in of the jury; reading of the charges to the jury; at least part of the the judge's introductory remarks to the jury; at least part of the the prosecution opening; the verdicts, and if any convictions result, sentencing (subject to any further argument before the trial judge as to the need for a confidential annexe).
At the conclusion of the trial, the question of publication will be reviewed. (The decision allows also for a possible review during the trial if there is a substantial change of circumstances) [18]. A small number of accredited journalists will be permitted to attend the trial but this is to be on strict terms of confidentiality until a either a review at the end of the trial or any further order [19]. How those journalists will be selected is not discussed by the court.
Anonymity of the defendants is not necessary [20] and the court expressed the opinion that it was difficult to conceive of a situation where both an in camera hearing and defendant anonymity were necessary [21].
From what we know of the case, the court's decision appears to be a sensible balance. However, para. 5 is important:
'As is well-established in our law, these tensions are resolved along the following lines:
i) Considerations of national security will not by themselves justify a departure from the principle of open justice;
ii) Open justice must, however, give way to the yet more fundamental principle that the paramount object of the Court is to do justice; accordingly, where there is a serious possibility that an insistence on open justice in the national security context would frustrate the administration of justice, for example, be deterring the Crown from prosecuting a case where it otherwise should do so a departure from open justice may be justified.
iii) The question of whether to give effect to a Ministerial Certificate (asserting, for instance, the need for privacy) such as those relied upon by the Crown here is ultimately for the Court, not a Minister. However, in the field of national security, a Court will not lightly depart from the assessment made by a Minister.'
Thus, it seems likely that the court will be faced with many more such Ministerial Certificates and that such certificates will amount to an important card in the Crown's hands even if not quite a trump card !
Other links:
Amnesty International UK
UK Criminal Law Blog - raises the important question of whether the jury will be vetted - CPS Jury Vetting and also here.
Twitter comment:
- Vincent Tabak And The Excluded Evidence
Vincent Tabak has been convicted of the murder, in December 2010, of Joanna Yeates. He was tried before Field J and a jury sitting at the Crown Court in Bristol. The jury convicted him by a 10 to 2 majority. Tabak had already pleaded...
- Non Jury Trial In The Crown Court - Should Be A Last Resort
Two Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judgments have been handed down which ought to make it clear that NON-jury trials in the Crown Court will be only ordered exceptionally. This is very good news for those who, like myself, believe in the value...
- An Outcome Which Raises Concern
Suppose that the issue in a case is identification. There are 2 identification parades though the defendant is only "lined up" in one of them. At neither parade does the prosecution witness "pick out" the defendant and actually picks out others...
- Nailed At Last .... Men Convicted At The First Non-jury Trial In The Crown Court
The four men - (Twomey, Blake, Hibberd and Cameron) - charged with a large-scale robbery committed at Heathrow in 2004 have been convicted by Mr Justice Treacy who heard the case without a jury. See Telegraph 31st March 2010 and the earlier post...
- Man On Trial For 2004 Armed Robbery Has Absconded
Peter Blake, a man on trial before Mr Justice Treacey, has absconded. He is one of 4 men standing trial together before a judge alone. The alleged offences date back to a robbery at Heathrow Airport in February 2004. See The Independent...
Law and Rights
Not quite a totally secret trial ... Ministerial Certificate not quite a trump card !
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), having taken time to consider the case, has given its DECISION - HERE (pdf 7 pages). JUDGMENTS are to follow at a later date and there is to be an OPEN judgment, a PRIVATE judgment and an EX PARTE judgment [12].
The Court of Appeal stressed that it did not merely "review" the decision of Nicol J but had made an independent decision based on the material before it. The material included certificates from the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary together with supporting schedules of material [10].
The CORE of the trial could be held
in camera [14] but a number of significant matters should be in open court [16]. In para 14, the Court of Appeal referred to there being 'a significant risk - at the very least, a serious possibility - that the administration of justice would be frustrated were the trial to be conducted in open court.' That does not appear to be a particularly demanding test for determining when departure from a 'fundamental principle of the common law' [2] may be departed from.
In open court may be: the swearing in of the jury; reading of the charges to the jury; at least part of the the judge's introductory remarks to the jury; at least part of the the prosecution opening; the verdicts, and if any convictions result, sentencing (subject to any further argument before the trial judge as to the need for a confidential annexe).
At the conclusion of the trial, the question of publication will be reviewed. (The decision allows also for a possible review during the trial if there is a substantial change of circumstances) [18]. A small number of accredited journalists will be permitted to attend the trial but this is to be on strict terms of confidentiality until a either a review at the end of the trial or any further order [19]. How those journalists will be selected is not discussed by the court.
Anonymity of the defendants is not necessary [20] and the court expressed the opinion that it was difficult to conceive of a situation where both an in camera hearing and defendant anonymity were necessary [21].
From what we know of the case, the court's decision appears to be a sensible balance. However, para. 5 is important:
'As is well-established in our law, these tensions are resolved along the following lines:
i) Considerations of national security will not by themselves justify a departure from the principle of open justice;
ii) Open justice must, however, give way to the yet more fundamental principle that the paramount object of the Court is to do justice; accordingly, where there is a serious possibility that an insistence on open justice in the national security context would frustrate the administration of justice, for example, be deterring the Crown from prosecuting a case where it otherwise should do so a departure from open justice may be justified.
iii) The question of whether to give effect to a Ministerial Certificate (asserting, for instance, the need for privacy) such as those relied upon by the Crown here is ultimately for the Court, not a Minister. However, in the field of national security, a Court will not lightly depart from the assessment made by a Minister.'
Thus, it seems likely that the court will be faced with many more such Ministerial Certificates and that such certificates will amount to an important card in the Crown's hands even if not quite a trump card !
Other links:
Amnesty International UK
UK Criminal Law Blog - raises the important question of whether the jury will be vetted - CPS Jury Vetting and also here.
Twitter comment:
Take care not to laud the Appeal Court judgment on Secret Trials. They started from nil & reasserted a basic right to 2 on a 1-10 scale
? John Cooper (@John_Cooper_QC) June 13, 2014 The Court of Ap said Admin of Justice might "possibly be frustrated" A lower standard of proof to compromise open justice than criminal st.
? John Cooper (@John_Cooper_QC) June 13, 2014
- Vincent Tabak And The Excluded Evidence
Vincent Tabak has been convicted of the murder, in December 2010, of Joanna Yeates. He was tried before Field J and a jury sitting at the Crown Court in Bristol. The jury convicted him by a 10 to 2 majority. Tabak had already pleaded...
- Non Jury Trial In The Crown Court - Should Be A Last Resort
Two Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judgments have been handed down which ought to make it clear that NON-jury trials in the Crown Court will be only ordered exceptionally. This is very good news for those who, like myself, believe in the value...
- An Outcome Which Raises Concern
Suppose that the issue in a case is identification. There are 2 identification parades though the defendant is only "lined up" in one of them. At neither parade does the prosecution witness "pick out" the defendant and actually picks out others...
- Nailed At Last .... Men Convicted At The First Non-jury Trial In The Crown Court
The four men - (Twomey, Blake, Hibberd and Cameron) - charged with a large-scale robbery committed at Heathrow in 2004 have been convicted by Mr Justice Treacy who heard the case without a jury. See Telegraph 31st March 2010 and the earlier post...
- Man On Trial For 2004 Armed Robbery Has Absconded
Peter Blake, a man on trial before Mr Justice Treacey, has absconded. He is one of 4 men standing trial together before a judge alone. The alleged offences date back to a robbery at Heathrow Airport in February 2004. See The Independent...