Boris Ignachkov The case of Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34 is pivotal for law students studying the intricacies of civil procedure, especially concerning the limitations of judicial powers in closed material procedures. This case offers a deep dive into how the courts handle sensitive information in civil claims, aligning procedural justice with national security concerns.
Legal Principles and Key Points in Al Rawi v Security Service
- In the case of Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531, it was held that the court doesn’t have the jurisdiction to hold a closed material procedure in ordinary civil claims for damages.
Facts of the Case Al Rawi v Security Service
- C, Al Rawi, argued that the Security Service were complicit when they detained and mistreated people in areas such as Guantanamo Bay.
- D, the Security Serviced, denied liability and filed an open defence alleging so. They asserted that the court ought to consider the evidence they held but, because of public interest, the information ought to be withheld.
- D proposed the use of a closed material procedure with certain advocates who represent C.
- The Court of Appeal found that the court did not have the power to order the closed material procedure in an ordinary civil claim for damages.
- D appealed the Court of Appeal’s finding.
Issues in Al Rawi v Security Service
- Did the court have the power to order the closed material procedure?
Held by the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by D and found that the court could not conduct a closed material procedure in an ordinary civil claim.
Lord Dyson JSC
- “For example, it is surely not in doubt that a court cannot conduct a trial inquisitorially rather than by means of an adversarial process (at any rate, not without the consent of the parties) or hold a hearing from which one of the parties is excluded. These (admittedly extreme) examples show that the court’s power to regulate its own procedures is subject to certain limitations. The basic rule is that (subject to certain established and limited exceptions) the court cannot exercise its power to regulate its own procedures in such a way as will deny parties their fundamental common law right to participate in the proceedings in accordance with the common law principles of natural justice and open justice.” [22]
Lord Clarke JSC (dissenting)
- “If he is persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of justice that some form of closed process should take place, I can see no reason why such a process should not be followed. If, as is common ground, it was open to the courts to develop the common law in children or wardship cases or in confidentiality cases on the ground that it was necessary to do so in the interests of justice, the same principle should apply here. I appreciate that this is at the end of what has hitherto been described as the PII process. However, what to do at that point can to my mind fairly be regarded as part of that process. It is certainly very closely related to it.” [178]
Significance of the Case in Legal Development
Al Rawi v Security Service is a cornerstone in jurisprudence regarding the transparency of legal proceedings and the right to a fair trial. It interacts with several key legal precedents:
- Chahal v United Kingdom [1996]: This European Court of Human Rights case is crucial for understanding the balance between national security and human rights, influencing the principles discussed in Al Rawi.
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007]: This case examines the use of secret evidence in control order cases, closely related to the procedural issues in Al Rawi.
- Tariq v Home Office [2011]: Similar to Al Rawi, this case deals with the use of closed material procedures, further exploring the limits of such practices in employment disputes within the context of national security.
Exam Questions and Answers
Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.
How do current UK laws balance national security with the principles of open justice post-Al Rawi?
Post-Al Rawi, UK laws strive to maintain a delicate balance between national security and the principles of open justice through legislation such as the Justice and Security Act 2013. This Act allows for “Closed Material Procedures” (CMPs) in cases involving national security, where sensitive information can be withheld from the public and the claimant, but reviewed by specially appointed advocates and judges.
What are the potential reforms to closed material procedures that could enhance transparency without compromising security?
There has been ongoing debate about enhancing the transparency of CMPs without compromising security. Suggestions include greater oversight by judges in deciding the use of CMPs and ensuring that non-sensitive summaries of evidence are provided to the other side wherever possible, as seen in practice following the principles set out in cases like Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013].
How has the Al Rawi ruling impacted subsequent terrorism legislation and the handling of similar cases?
The ruling in Al Rawi has influenced how terrorism cases are handled in the UK, particularly in terms of the admissibility of evidence and the rights of the accused. The case underscores the need for a fair trial despite the complexities of handling sensitive information, impacting subsequent terrorism legislation by reinforcing the need for clearer guidelines on evidence handling and the rights of defendants in national security cases.
