This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21653211

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Secret courts: Former top judge Lord Woolf backs government changes Secret courts: Former top judge Lord Woolf backs government changes
(about 5 hours later)
The former head of the judiciary, Lord Woolf, has thrown his support behind plans to allow more civil courts to examine secret intelligence in private.The former head of the judiciary, Lord Woolf, has thrown his support behind plans to allow more civil courts to examine secret intelligence in private.
MPs from all sides will try later to force the government to introduce more safeguards before these so-called secret courts can be used. His intervention came as MPs try to introduce more safeguards before so called secret courts can be used.
Ministers want sensitive evidence to be used in trials without UK or foreign intelligence sources being exposed. Cabinet minister Ken Clarke said it was "common sense" for sensitive evidence to be admissible in trials without intelligence sources being exposed.
Critics say this would threaten the tradition of open justice. But critics said safeguards in place "for generations" were under threat.
Those opposed to the proposals also believe they could enable allegations about the mistreatment of terror suspects to be covered up. The government has introduced more safeguards to legislation currently being scrutinised by Parliament, ensuring that judges and not ministers decide when so-called closed material proceedings are used.
'Standards of justice' But in a series of votes later in the House of Commons, MPs from all sides will push for secret courts to be used only as a last resort when national security outweighs the need for open justice.
The government has introduced more safeguards to legislation currently being scrutinised by Parliament, ensuring that judges and not ministers decide when these so called secret courts are used. 'Unfettered discretion'
And the concessions have been welcomed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who sits as a crossbencher in the House of Lords. Minister without portfolio Ken Clarke, in charge of the bill's passage, said "enormous" improvements had been made since the legislation was first drafted and judges would have "unfettered discretion" to decide whether to hold proceedings in private.
href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/" >In a letter to The Times he says the government's plans will retain "the standards of general justice" while ensuring that all sides can put their case and judges are not "blindfolded" by not being able to test certain evidence. This, he said, could only happen in national security cases where the safety of British citizens or threats to international order were possible and not situations where governments had simply "made a pig's ear" of things.
"They will ensure that both the government and the claimant are given the greatest opportunity to put their case and that concerned citizens will have the benefit of a final judgement on whether serious allegations have foundation," he writes. "We have every protection on the face of the bill," he told MPs. While the government had accepted a large number of amendments to the proposals, he said further calls for change amounted to "human rights lawyers clasping at straws".
Ahead of Monday's debate, Lord Woolf - a former Lord Chief Justice and crossbench peer - said the government's amended plans would retain "the standards of general justice" while ensuring that all sides can put their case and judges are not "blindfolded" by not being able to test certain evidence.
"They will ensure that both the government and the claimant are given the greatest opportunity to put their case and that concerned citizens will have the benefit of a final judgement on whether serious allegations have foundation," he wrote in a letter to the Times.
"What is important is that the operation of these closed material proceedings should be under the complete control of a judge.""What is important is that the operation of these closed material proceedings should be under the complete control of a judge."
The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said the Lib Dems were also broadly satisfied with the safeguards put in place after expressing strong initial reservations but Labour and other MPs want further changes. But Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie said he believed Lord Woolf was mistaken and too much power would lie in the hands of the government.
In a series of votes in the House of Commons later, they will push for secret courts to be used only as a last resort when national security outweighs the need for open justice. "They (the amendments) are really about the kind of society we want to live in, about whether people can get to hear the case made against them, and whether we can keep legal safeguards we have had for generations," he told MPs.
Settling claimsSettling claims
Defending the plans in December, Prime Minister David Cameron said they would apply in a small number of terrorism-related cases which would "simply not be heard" in court otherwise.
Speaking on Monday, a No 10 spokesman said "this is an important bit of government policy and the government intends to see it passed".
Ministers are concerned that millions of pounds have had to be be spent settling claims which it was prevented from challenging successfully, because that would have involved revealing secret intelligence in open court.Ministers are concerned that millions of pounds have had to be be spent settling claims which it was prevented from challenging successfully, because that would have involved revealing secret intelligence in open court.
Speaking on Monday, a No 10 spokesman said "this is an important bit of government policy and the government intends to see it passed".
But the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights has said the proposals - which would mean some defendants would not hear all the evidence against them - mark a radical departure from the British tradition of fair and open justice and the case for change has not been made persuasively.But the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights has said the proposals - which would mean some defendants would not hear all the evidence against them - mark a radical departure from the British tradition of fair and open justice and the case for change has not been made persuasively.
And responding to Lord Woolf's intervention, Reprieve - which campaigns to uphold the human rights of prisoners - said it was "hard to see how a case in which you cannot hear or challenge the evidence used against you can be described as meeting the standards of general justice".And responding to Lord Woolf's intervention, Reprieve - which campaigns to uphold the human rights of prisoners - said it was "hard to see how a case in which you cannot hear or challenge the evidence used against you can be described as meeting the standards of general justice".
"It is mystifying that ministers are still pushing these plans despite not having shown a shred of evidence that they are needed," its executive director Clare Algar added.
Ministers suffered a series of defeats on the proposals in the House of Lords in November and are likely to encounter continued opposition when the legislation returns to the Upper House in the coming weeks.Ministers suffered a series of defeats on the proposals in the House of Lords in November and are likely to encounter continued opposition when the legislation returns to the Upper House in the coming weeks.