This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/30/media-push-details-erol-incedal-terror-trial-revelation
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Media push for revelation of details of Erol Incedal terror trial | Media push for revelation of details of Erol Incedal terror trial |
| (34 minutes later) | |
| There is a “powerful public interest” in the public being permitted to know what happened behind closed doors at an Old Bailey trial that ended with a London law student being acquitted of a serious terrorism charge, the court of appeal heard on Tuesday. | |
| Lawyers representing more than a dozen UK media organisations told the court that they believed the trial judge should have lifted reporting restrictions, after Erol Incedal was cleared of plotting a gun attack on the streets of the capital. | |
| Because of an unprecedented arrangement that was put in place before Incedal went on trial, a small group of journalists had been permitted to hear some of the closed evidence, both for and against Incedal, when he was prosecuted in conditions of almost complete secrecy. | Because of an unprecedented arrangement that was put in place before Incedal went on trial, a small group of journalists had been permitted to hear some of the closed evidence, both for and against Incedal, when he was prosecuted in conditions of almost complete secrecy. |
| But the trial judge, Sir Andrew Nicol, ruled at the end of the trial that the reporters could not report what they had heard. | But the trial judge, Sir Andrew Nicol, ruled at the end of the trial that the reporters could not report what they had heard. |
| As a consequence, they could face prosecution for contempt of court, and possible imprisonment, were they to make the evidence public. Their notebooks have been impounded at Thames House, the headquarters of MI5; the court heard that they may eventually be destroyed. | As a consequence, they could face prosecution for contempt of court, and possible imprisonment, were they to make the evidence public. Their notebooks have been impounded at Thames House, the headquarters of MI5; the court heard that they may eventually be destroyed. |
| It was “a striking case” that took the court into uncharted waters, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas said at the start of the appeal hearing, some of which will itself be heard in secret. | It was “a striking case” that took the court into uncharted waters, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas said at the start of the appeal hearing, some of which will itself be heard in secret. |
| Incedal, 27, from south London, was arrested in October 2013 after police shot out the tyres of his Mercedes when he was pulled over near Tower Bridge in London. | Incedal, 27, from south London, was arrested in October 2013 after police shot out the tyres of his Mercedes when he was pulled over near Tower Bridge in London. |
| At his trial, the jury heard that a listening device had been inserted inside the car 13 days earlier, capturing his conversations about jihadi groups, his supposed love of the word terrorism, and a plan that he had to purchase a gun. | At his trial, the jury heard that a listening device had been inserted inside the car 13 days earlier, capturing his conversations about jihadi groups, his supposed love of the word terrorism, and a plan that he had to purchase a gun. |
| An examination of his laptop resulted in the recovery of communications with a British jihadi called Ahmed, who was encouraging him to mount a terrorist attack. | |
| Incedal was jailed for 42 months after being convicted of possession of a bomb-making manual, which was found on a memory card hidden inside his iPhone case. | Incedal was jailed for 42 months after being convicted of possession of a bomb-making manual, which was found on a memory card hidden inside his iPhone case. |
| Incedal’s friend Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, who is also 27 and from south London, was jailed for three years after pleading guilty to possession of the same document. | Incedal’s friend Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, who is also 27 and from south London, was jailed for three years after pleading guilty to possession of the same document. |
| Rarmoul-Bouhadjar has since been released from prison and Incedal is due to be released in July. | Rarmoul-Bouhadjar has since been released from prison and Incedal is due to be released in July. |
| Anthony Hudson QC, counsel for the media, said the prosecution had put before the jury clear evidence that Incedal had been communicating with a British jihadi who was planning “very real and very serious terrorist offences” in the UK, and that he had already been convicted of unlawful possession of a bomb-making manual. | Anthony Hudson QC, counsel for the media, said the prosecution had put before the jury clear evidence that Incedal had been communicating with a British jihadi who was planning “very real and very serious terrorist offences” in the UK, and that he had already been convicted of unlawful possession of a bomb-making manual. |
| Despite this, an Old Bailey jury cleared Incedal of plotting a terrorist attack earlier this year after his defence was presented in secret. That defence concerned what was described at the court of appeal as a piece of “core information”, raised only behind closed doors. | Despite this, an Old Bailey jury cleared Incedal of plotting a terrorist attack earlier this year after his defence was presented in secret. That defence concerned what was described at the court of appeal as a piece of “core information”, raised only behind closed doors. |
| “Mr Incedal was acquitted of of these very serious offences, but the public have no understanding of the possible reasons for that acquittal,” Hudson said. | “Mr Incedal was acquitted of of these very serious offences, but the public have no understanding of the possible reasons for that acquittal,” Hudson said. |
| “There is a very powerful public interest in the public being permitted to know the about those reasons, so that the public can form their own view as to whether or not this is what might appear to be a remarkable acquittal of very serious criminal offences.” | “There is a very powerful public interest in the public being permitted to know the about those reasons, so that the public can form their own view as to whether or not this is what might appear to be a remarkable acquittal of very serious criminal offences.” |
| Hudson said the secrecy that surrounded Incedal’s trial had been said to be necessary in order to ensure that the case went ahead. That reason had “fallen away” once the jury returned its verdict, and the Crown must now justify the continuing secrecy. | Hudson said the secrecy that surrounded Incedal’s trial had been said to be necessary in order to ensure that the case went ahead. That reason had “fallen away” once the jury returned its verdict, and the Crown must now justify the continuing secrecy. |
| He added that the media would be objecting to any proposal by the Crown to submit evidence during the appeal by means of a process known as “closed material procedures”, which would mean that the media’s legal representatives would not be able to see it. This, he said, “would be unfair and a breach of natural justice”. | He added that the media would be objecting to any proposal by the Crown to submit evidence during the appeal by means of a process known as “closed material procedures”, which would mean that the media’s legal representatives would not be able to see it. This, he said, “would be unfair and a breach of natural justice”. |
| The court heard that the Crown may not have opposed the lifting of reporting restrictions had Incedal been convicted of the more serious offence. “We don’t know where they got that distinction from,” said Hudson. | The court heard that the Crown may not have opposed the lifting of reporting restrictions had Incedal been convicted of the more serious offence. “We don’t know where they got that distinction from,” said Hudson. |
| The media’s appeal is being opposed by Crown prosecutorsl. | |
| The hearing continues. | The hearing continues. |