This panel seeks to examine issues surrounding secrecy in security-related public law cases. Specifically, the panel will focus on exploring how UK courts have managed secrecy, and the potential implications for state accountability. The panel is chaired by Dr Hayley Hooper, and Dr Fergal Davis will act as a discussant.
Assuming Facts as an Alternative to Secret Evidence
The UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the court responsible for determining human rights claims with regards to state surveillance, has developed procedure which serves to reduce the reliance on secret evidence in a case. Rather than establishing security-sensitive facts regarding the UK’s surveillance regime in closed proceedings, the procedure involves assuming certain facts regarding the nature...
Judicial Control over the Use of Closed Material Procedures
This paper identifies the key challenges posed by the innate secrecy of closed material procedures (CMPs), highlighting the concomitant importance of judicial control over their use. Judicial independence is of fundamental importance in any democracy of which judicial decision-making powers are an essential element, even in the national security context. In the UK, the Justice...