In safeguarding national security the Government produces and receives sensitive information. This information must be protected appropriately, as failure to do so may compromise investigations, endanger lives and ultimately lessen its ability to keep the country safe. The increased security and intelligence activity of recent years has led to greater scrutiny including in the civil courts, which have heard a growing numbers of cases challenging Government decisions and actions in the national security sphere. Such cases involve information that under current rules cannot be disclosed in a courtroom. The UK justice system is then either unable to pass judgment and cases collapse or are settled without a judge reaching any conclusions. This green paper aims to respond to the challenges of how sensitive information is treated in the full range of civil proceedings. It looks for solutions that improve the current arrangements while upholding the Government's commitment to the rule of law. It also addresses the need for public reassurance that the national security work is robustly scrutinised, and that the scrutinising bodies are credible and effective. The proposals in this consultation are in three broad areas: enhancing procedural fairness, safeguarding material and reform of intelligence oversight.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) calls for statutory clarification of law on disclosure of national security-sensitive material, but finds no case for more extensive change. The Government has failed to make the case for extending "closed material procedures" to all civil proceedings and to inquests: the Government has not demonstrated that the fairness concern on which it relies to justify the proposal is in fact a real and practical problem. The Committee believes that closed material procedures are inherently unfair and the proposals in the Green Paper are a radical departure from longstanding traditions of open justice and fairness. Nor does it accept that replacing the current law governing disclosure of sensitive material (the law of Public Interest Immunity, or "PII") with closed material procedures is justified. The rule of law requires that decisions about the disclosure of material in legal proceedings be taken by judges not ministers and the current legal framework of PII has not been shown to be inadequate. There is a case, however, for that legal framework to be made clearer in the way in which it applies to national security-sensitive material and the Committee suggests how that could be done by legislation and changes to the Coroners Rules and guidance. The Committee regrets that the Green Paper overlooks the very considerable impact of its proposals on the freedom and ability of the media to report on matters of public interest and concern.

Commentators have shown how a ‘culture of security’ ushered in after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 has involved exceptional legal measures and increased recourse to secrecy on the basis of protecting public safety and safeguarding national security. In this context, scholars have largely been preoccupied with the ways that increased security impinges upon civil liberties. While secrecy is justified on public interest grounds, there remains a tension between the need for secrecy and calls for openness, transparency and disclosure. In law, secrecy has implications for the separation of powers, due process, and the rule of law, raising fundamental concerns about open justice, procedural fairness and human rights. Beyond the counterterrorism and legal context, scholarly interest in secrecy has been concerned with the credibility of public and private institutions, as well as the legacies of secrecy across a range of institutional and cultural settings. By exploring the intersections between secrecy, law and society, this volume is a timely and critical intervention in secrecy debates traversing various fields of legal and social inquiry. It will be a useful resource for academic researchers, university teachers and students, as well as law practitioners and policymakers interested in the legal and socio-legal dimensions of secrecy.

The Politics of the Common Law offers a critical introduction to the legal system of England and Wales. Unlike other conventional accounts, this revised and updated second edition presents a coherent argument, organised around the central claim that contemporary postcolonial common law must be understood as an articulation of human rights and open justice. The book examines the impact of the European Convention and European Union law on the structures and ideologies of the common law and engages with the politics of the rule of law. These themes are read into normative accounts of civil and criminal procedure that stress the importance of due process. The final sections of the book address the reality of civil and criminal procedure in the light of recent civil unrest in the UK and the growing privatisation of public services. The book questions whether it is possible to find a balance between the requirements of economics and the demands of justice.

The decade after 11 September 2001 saw the enactment of counter-terrorism laws around the world. These laws challenged assumptions about public institutions, human rights and constitutional law. Those challenges are particularly apparent in the context of the increased surveillance powers granted to many law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This book brings together leading legal scholars in the field of counter-terrorism and constitutional law, and focuses their attention on the issue of surveillance. The breadth of topics covered in this collection include: the growth and diversification of mechanisms of mass surveillance, the challenges that technological developments pose for constitutionalism, new actors in the surveillance state (such as local communities and private organisations), the use of surveillance material as evidence in court, and the effectiveness of constitutional and other forms of review of surveillance powers. The book brings a strong legal focus to the debate surrounding surveillance and counter-terrorism, and draws important conclusions about the constitutional implications of the expansion of surveillance powers after 9/11.

This newly revised and updated second edition provides a comprehensive overview of international counter-terrorism law and practice. Brand new and revised chapters provide critical commentary on the law from leading scholars and practitioners in the field, including new topics for this edition such as foreign terrorist fighters, the nexus between organized crime and terrorism, and the prevention of violent extremism.

Contains a full account of administrative law in the context of social, political and economic forces shaping the law.

In many countries today there is a growing and genuinely-held concern that the institutional arrangements for the protection of human rights suffer from a 'democratic deficit'. Yet at the same time there appears to be a new consensus that human rights require legal protection and that all branches of the state have a shared responsibility for upholding and realising those legally protected rights. This volume of essays tries to understand this paradox by considering how parliaments have sought to discharge their responsibility to protect human rights. Contributors seek to take stock of the extent to which national and sub-national parliaments have developed legislative review for human rights compatibility, and the effect of international initiatives to increase the role of parliaments in relation to human rights. They also consider the relationship between legislative review and judicial review for human rights compatibility, and whether courts could do more to incentivise better democratic deliberation about human rights. Enhancing the role of parliaments in the protection and realisation of human rights emerges as an idea whose time has come, but the volume makes clear that there is a great deal more to do in all parliaments to develop the institutional structures, processes and mechanisms necessary to put human rights at the centre of their function of making law and holding the government to account. The sense of democratic deficit is unlikely to dissipate unless parliaments empower themselves by exercising the considerable powers and responsibilities they already have to interpret and apply human rights law, and courts in turn pay closer attention to that reasoned consideration. 'I believe that this book will be of enormous value to all of those interested in human rights, in modern legislatures, and the relationship between the two. As this is absolutely fundamental to the characterand credibility of democracy, academic insight of this sort is especially welcome. This is an area where I expect there to be an ever expanding community of interest.' From the Foreword by the Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons

This collection of essays by leading academics, lawyers, parliamentarians and parliamentary officials provides a critical assessment of the UK Parliament's two main constitutional roles-as a legislature and as the preeminent institution for calling government to account. Both functions are undergoing change and facing new challenges. Part 1 (Legislation) includes chapters on Parliament's emerging responsibilities for pre-legislative scrutiny of government Bills and for evaluating proposed legislation against explicit constitutional standards. The impact on legislation of the European Union and the growing influence of the House of Lords are also examined. Part 2 (Accountability) investigates how Parliament operates to scrutinise areas of executive action previously often shielded from effective parliamentary oversight, including national security, war-making powers and administrative justice. There are also chapters on parliamentary reform, including analysis of the House of Commons 'Wright reforms', parliamentary sovereignty, privilege and the European Convention on Human Rights, Euroscepticism, and parliamentary sovereignty and the regulation of lobbyists. The book will be of interest to anyone who is curious about the work of Parliament and is aimed at legal academics, practitioners and political scientists.

How do bills of rights influence legislative decision-making in New Zealand and the United Kingdom?