Robert Verkaik: Court of appeal has taken a welcome stand for fairness
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Judges are rarely given to hyperbole or intemperate language, even when deciding matters of huge constitutional importance. So when three members of the country's most senior judiciary say they have "taken a stand" against those who pose a threat to open justice, we should all sit up and take notice.
Yesterday's Court of Appeal judgment in favour of six former Guantanamo Bay inmates goes to the very heart of what constitutes a fair hearing in a British court.
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, who headed a panel of three appeal judges, comprehensively rejected arguments advanced by the Government and MI5 that the men's claims for damages should be heard behind a veil of secrecy.
It is a decision that draws a welcome line in the sand concerning ministers' increasing reliance on procedures aimed at removing embarrassing material from the public gaze.
Ever since the terror attacks in New York on 11 September the most concerted threats to open justice have emanated from the secret services and their political masters.
The most damaging example was the recent attempt by the Foreign Office to gag the courts from publishing a summary of the evidence of what MI5 knew about the unlawful detention and torture of Binyam Mohamed. After a long-running litigation, the judges reluctantly overruled ministers' objections to the publication of the now-infamous seven paragraphs in that case.
But there is no doubt that the encounter has harmed relations between the Government and the courts, and may well have unsettled the judiciary's confidence in the veracity of the evidence, secret or otherwise, being submitted on behalf of ministers.
Ministerial-judicial relations reached a new low in February, when Government lawyers wrote to one of the judges in the Binyam Mohamed case, asking him to soften his criticism of MI5.
That tactic spectacularly backfired when the letter was made public and the thrust of the judge's comments was reinstated in his later judgment. The judge in question was Lord Neuberger – who clearly decided yesterday it was time to stand up for the principles of open justice.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments