Guardian: Secret courts for terror cases

[lady lib]

Secret courts for terror cases
Security-cleared judges would decide how long suspects could be held

Alan Travis, home affairs editor, GUARDIAN UK
Tuesday August 9, 2005

Special anti-terror courts sitting in secret to determine how long suspects should be detained without charge are now under active consideration, it emerged yesterday.

Home Office sources confirmed that ministers are considering making a French-style "security-cleared judge" responsible for assembling a pre-trial case against terrorist suspects, with in-camera access to sensitive intelligence evidence, including currently inadmissible phone-tap evidence.

The plan under consideration, which echoes elements of David Blunkett's proposal last year for secret anti-terrorist courts, could also involve the use of security-vetted "special advocates" as legal representatives of those detained. But they would not be able to disclose the nature of the evidence under which their clients were held before being charged.

The proposal puts flesh on the point outlined by Tony Blair last Friday, when he said that part of the new anti-terror package would include "a new court procedure which would allow a pretrial process". He said it would provide a way of meeting requests by the police and security services that detention before charge should be extended from the current 14 days up to three months.

MORE

LINK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5258169-103685,00.html

[mom cat]

1. This is an outrage, though it still beats the US draconian policy of

"We can hold you forever and never tell you why"!

[lady lib]

2. The spread of this secrecy from the U.S. to the U.K. is worrisome

Roger Smith, director of Justice, the all-party law reform group, said there were enormous dangers in using "preventitive detention" and in not disclosing the case against somebody held without charge. "How does a person refute the allegation against them if they do not know what that allegation is?" he asked.

[wli]

3. star chambers return to Britain

Who'd have guessed?

[lady lib]

4. Certainly not me. I had to look it up.

Good call, wli. :hi:

The Court of Star Chamber 1487-1641

The Court of Star Chamber was a court of law which evolved from meetings of the king's royal council. Although its roots go back to the medieval period, the court only became powerful as a separate entity during the reign of Henry VII. In 1487 the court became a judicial body separate from the king's council, with a mandate to hear petitions of redress.

-snip-

The mandate of the court expanded under the Tudors to include instances of public disorder. Judges would receive petitions involving property rights, public corruption, trade and government administration, and disputes arising from land enclosures. Although the court was initially a court of appeal, Henry VIII and his councillors Wolsey and Cranmer encouraged plaintiffs to bring their cases directly to the Star Chamber, bypassing the lower courts entirely.

-snip-

The power of the court of Star Chamber grew considerably under the Stuarts, and by the time of Charles I it had become a byword for misuse and abuse of power by the king and his circle. James I and his son Charles used the court to examine cases of sedition, which, in practice, meant that the court could be used to suppress opposition to royal policies. It became used to try nobles too powerful to be brought to trial in the lower courts. Court sessions were held in secret, with no right of appeal, and punishment was swift and severe to any enemy of the crown.

-snip-

Finally, in 1641 the Long Parliament abolished the hated Star Chamber, though its name survives still to designate arbitrary, secretive proceedings in opposition to personal rights and liberty.

MORE
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/star-chamber.htm