• Don't Pannick: UK Lords shoot down govt plan for secret court hearings
    11 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20438049[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]The government has been defeated three times in the House of Lords over plans to allow ministers to order secret court hearings to consider evidence in cases relating to national security.[/B] Peers backed calls to give judges the say over the use of "closed material proceedings" by 264 votes to 159. Critics say closed hearings are unfair to defendants and threaten the principle of open justice. But ministers say intelligence which risks UK lives must not be disclosed. The House of Lords is debating the Justice and Security Bill, which would ensure far greater use of so-called closed proceedings to examine sensitive intelligence and protect national security. The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said ministers had been braced for a number of defeats after a coalition of crossbench peers, led by QC Lord Pannick, joined forces with Labour and Liberal Democrat peers to introduce safeguards into the bill. Peers backed Lord Pannick's call to give judges greater discretion to hold secret hearings rather than obliging them to do so in national security cases. Peers also voted by 273 to 173 to give judges and defendants the right to demand closed material proceedings not just ministers. After suffering a third substantial defeat, ministers chose not to oppose a series of futher amendments tabled by opponents. As such, peers nodded through - without a vote - changes that would ensure that closed proceedings would only be used as a last resort, and only if the court also had considered using an existing mechanism allowing some proceedings to be secret, known as the public interest immunity system. Our correspondent said the government insists that it is acting to keep the public and the security services safe but its opponents say they are voting to keep us free and our courts open.[/quote]
Well at least they're good for something.
Thank you House of Lords. Don't let these bastards have secret courts.
I think it makes a little bit of sense to have non-elected officials in parliament. They've no reason to let this pass, rather than those who are elected and do. That said, full democracy should be what happens.
The House of Lords act as a decent buffer for all the lunatic bills.
[QUOTE=Vasili;38542967]Well at least they're good for something.[/QUOTE] Lords have always been good, and it's stuff like this that I support having them for.
They just want you to think it failed, that's why they're secret
I find it amusing how the unelected ones are the ones who seem to actually try to protect the rights of the citizenry.
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;38543661]The House of Lords act as a decent buffer for all the lunatic bills.[/QUOTE] They can only block a bill once pretty much, and can't block anything to do with the budget.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38544136]They can only block a bill once pretty much, and can't block anything to do with the budget.[/QUOTE] Three times actually.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38544523]Three times actually.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949[/url] [quote]The 1949 Act effectively reduced this delay to a single year, by altering the wording of the 1911 Act.Section 2 defined the act's short title as the "Parliament Act 1949" and that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 should be construed together under that name, particularly with reference to Section 4 of the 1911 Act, which described the wording used when an act was passed in this method.[/quote] 3 times in one year is stretching it.
[QUOTE=Vasili;38542967]Well at least they're good for something.[/QUOTE] Yup preventing parliament making laws that aren't for the better of the country. It kinda works out nicely once in a while.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.