Appeal Court overrules "secret trial" proposal but concerns remain around 'accredited' journalists
A bid by the Crown Prosecution service to hold a terrorism trial entirely in secret was overturned by the court of appeal today after following a legal challenge by the Guardian and other media organisations.
The court of appeal
The defendants, who up until today have only been referred to in court listings as "AB" and "CD", can now be named as Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bohhadjar. Lord Justice Gross said "We express grave concern as to the cumulative effects of holding a trial on camera and anonymising the defendants. We find it difficult to conceive of a situation where both departures from open justice will be justified, we are not persuaded of any such justification in the present case."
However the ruling was by no means a complete victory for the media organisations involved as the court did agree with the Crown Prosecution service that the bulk of the case would still be heard in secret on the grounds of "National security." There will also be unprecedented restrictions on reporting the case with only a small number of specially "accredited" journalists being permitted to cover the trial as otherwise, the court was told The Crown Prosecution Service had raised the prospect of dropping the case if it was to be heard in public. The court also decided that reporters would not be allowed to take their notes home with them each day as these would be retained overnight by court staff
Asked to comment Conservative MP David Davis said: "This is a massive improvement on the original draconian proposal that the government originally put up. It demonstrates only too clearly how over the top that demand by our agencies was in terms of the real security of the nation." but added "Nevertheless we should be wary of accepting as the new norm in camera trials with controlled journalistic access. "
Other commentators also expressed doubts about the idea that journalists would require to be accredited by the CPS in order to be able to report a trial. Writing in the Telegraph, security editor Tom Whitehead noted "The courts are now fiddling around the edges of such procedures to fit an “exceptional” case. The fear, of course, is what happens when another “exceptional” case comes along and a precedent has been set?"