Fully secret terror trial bid noped by UK Court of Appeal - Polidicks

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/12/secret-terror-trial-ab-cd-public-court[/url] [quote]An attempt by the Crown Prosecution Service to hold a terrorism trial entirely in secret has been overturned by the court of appeal. The request, unprecedented in recent criminal justice history, would have prevented anyone knowing even the identity of the two accused, known only as AB and CD. They can now be named as Erol Incedal, who was AB, and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, who was CD. The decision by three court of appeal judges, Lord Justice Gross, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Burnett, will now mean that the opening and closing sections of the trial will be held in public. Gross said the court was not convinced of the need for the defendants to be anonymised and for their trial to be held entirely in secret. The application to hold the whole of the trial behind closed doors was opposed by lawyers for the Guardian and other media. In their decision, the judges said the "core" part of the trial must take place in secret.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27806814[/url] [quote]An unprecedented attempt to hold the first ever completely secret criminal trial in the UK has been blocked by the Court of Appeal. Judges said that the "core" of the terrorism trial could be partly heard in secret but parts must be in public. They said media also should be allowed to name the two defendants as Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar. Prosecutors said their unique application for a secret trial was in the interests of national security. They had previously warned that they may have to abandon the prosecution if judges did not ban the press and the public from every part of the proceedings against the two defendants. Until Thursday, the men were previously only known as AB and CD respectively.[/quote]

Keeping it secret from the media until after it's done seems like a good idea to me, given how the media will try to make an absolute circus of it, but total secrecy is just wrong. Good on the appeals court.

[QUOTE=onebit;45082430]to keep the case itself secret is bad.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TestECull;45082730]but total secrecy is just wrong[/QUOTE] wow is it even possible for anyone to love terrorism any more than you guys do (the answer is no it isn't)

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;45083066]wow is it even possible for anyone to love terrorism any more than you guys do (the answer is no it isn't)[/QUOTE] What benefits are there to trying someone entirely in secret and never letting anyone know what happened? I usually agree that governments need to keep secrets and all that but I really cannot see the benefits of an entirely secret trial. I can understand evidence being kept secret etc but flat out denying that the trial is taking place seems a bit over the top.

[QUOTE=TestECull;45082730]Keeping it secret from the media until after it's done seems like a good idea to me[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=onebit;45082430]I don't see any issues with withholding their identity until proven guilty[/QUOTE] Yet that's exactly what the Court of Appeal is forbidding. [quote]Judges said that the "core" of the terrorism trial could be partly heard in secret but parts must be in public. They said media also should be allowed to name the two defendants as Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;45083066]wow is it even possible for anyone to love terrorism any more than you guys do (the answer is no it isn't)[/QUOTE] what?

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;45083066]wow is it even possible for anyone to love terrorism any more than you guys do (the answer is no it isn't)[/QUOTE] Wow, you're not even American and you're making dumb terrorism posts.