Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I wonder why it's being kept a secret
Would just come out and say collectively that there is no society
That they have never believed in ideas of government protecting its people, that ideas like democracy and justice will never be recognized while they're around, and that we're all consumers now and we can get to fuck if we don't like it because we're too busy choking on our oven chips in front of the One Show to do anything about it anyway.
Sad thing is it wouldn't even change anything, it'd just be good to know that's where we stand officially.
that their initials were AB and CD
I know a guy who works at the law making place ; )
on trial for his war crimes and also being a b. liar, u get me
Good work, joe
Is the outcome of the trial made public?
something to do with social services, or a man with alzheimers or something? Might have been kept from their family, I forget. Can't be very secret if we know it is happening. Better they just didn't say anything at all, it is for national security or sumshit.
secret trial happens...
Im not saying they are connected..
And she replies "Well, thats golf maaaan.."
There are a lot of ways to have a trial involving secret or privileged information without having an entirely secret trial.
I... don't understand.
And that's not me being sarcy. Genuinely. Secret trials? This can only get worse.
but it's really hard to know without being able to actually examine the rationale for ourselves. which obviously, by definition, we can't do...
i can envisage some hypothetical situations where i think secrecy would be alright (and actually might be more in the interests of justice. it's being proposed that the trial still has a jury which I reckon is equally as important as the principle of open justice. and not all uk trials even have juries - they did away with them for a lot of cases in northern ireland during the troubles cause it would have been too risky for the jurors and impossible to get realistic chance of conviction/safe convictions in every case).
I guess I'm not *that* worried about this cause the decision is being taken by some of the most distinguished legal thinkers in the country who have track records of not taking decisions like this at all lightly (rather than some fuckwit government minister). they're all very liberal ;)
still quite possible that this is a very dangerous precedent and that we're wrong to trust these people to play about with such fundamental rights.
and yes. Same conclusions here - maybe there's a very good reason in terms of potential terrorism consequences that certain people can't even be outed as having been formally arrested.
It just gives me the creeps, power acting behind the scenes but not so much that we don't know it exists. I suppose at least that's better than knowing nothing (although somehow more frustrating)
The idea they are not the best people to trust with our rights, and that if they aren't there's not a lot we'll be able to do about it.
And putting the idea out there that secret trials can/do happen in Britain, and even that they can be legitimate at some points, would develop into a source of oppression in everyday life and thinking.
"would develop into a source of oppression in everyday life and thinking." not that sure about that tbh. I would hope people continue to go on the news banging on about how awful it is and all that. but the judiciary is really meant to be more or less independent of all that. just glad i'm not someone who has to make decisions like this.
The judiciary is largely invisible and shielded from things like elections or media debates. I'm not saying the individuals in it would be actively oppressive, it's more that the effect of doing it in special circumstances might have a panopticon effect and stifle yr everyday recalcitrant in the name of the war on terror. But yeah I hope continued political/media pressure to let them know this is not on will do the trick.
In that such times as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal gets made up of less liberal people the precedent for secret trials will be there to abuse.
The thing that worries me is that we'll never hear the rationale for any future secret trials. "Why's this one secret then?" "Because that other one was?" "So they're similar?" "Can't say, it's secret."
tbh I think there will be journalists and other people who aren't senior judges who have some knowledge of this. not saying it wouldnt ever be open to abuse but i dont think they're gonna just start doing this willy nilly and if they did, i dont think it would take that long for someone to suss out that something really dodgy was going on. just glad i'm not someone who works for the CPS who has to make decisions about whether to whistleblow my superiors.
I’m pretty confident it’ll turn out to be two individuals who worked in the Home Office/Foreign Office/MI5/MI6/counter-terror police, etc. with the justification being that an open trial will reveal what they knew, how senior they were, give the game away to their terrorist line managers, or something similar.
Not quite the same, but I know of an employment tribunal within one of the above where someone was sacked without reason given and was able to appeal the decision but not able to see the “evidence” against them due to unspecified security concerns (I believe the implication was one of their family members was a terrorist which made them a security risk, but they couldn’t be told in case they blew the case or something).
See also the secret inquests debate which has also been rumbling on for years: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18240753
Security concerns are basically the perfect excuse for anything you like. Yeah, sorry boss, I couldn’t do that report you asked me to do, but I also can’t tell you why I didn’t do it because if I did we’d all be blown up by terrorists and you’d *hate* that.
they just want the juicy gossip. That is why the papers are going on about it so much.
you'll even talk at length about something that we don't even know anything about.
why did they tell people about it?
Also If the court of appeal says they cant hold it in secret, and THEY are now saying that they might not be able to have a trial at all in that case, then what happens? Do they continue to hold the suspects without trial? Wouldnt it have been easier for them to just bump off the 2 suspects if its that important? (please note I am playing the devils advocate with that last sentence)
Including the application for a secret trial. It also doesn't say that they can't have a trial at all. The point about holding suspects indefinitely prior to trial is fair though, and an area in which the UK is somewhat behind other countries (in Italy for example there have been cases in which suspects have claimed compensation for time spent detained prior to trial).
but the people who DO want a secret trial have said that it may be that if it cant be secret then they might not be able to have the trial at all as it will mean that it will be counter productive to have a trial because of the non secrecy.
So what I meant to ask was what happens then? can they indefinately hold the suspects because of the risks in not having the trial in secret?
PS I can envisage potential terrorist stuff that would need to be kept secret.
not appropriate and there would be no safeguard to check this.