I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference voting overwhelmingly to condemn the Government plan to introduce ‘secret courts’ and is saddened by the fact that most of our MPs defied the wishes of the party by voting for this measure in the Commons.
I’m especially sad that activist Jo Shaw quit the party in protest, announcing her resignation during the emergency debate in Brighton this morning. I understand other members, such as Ruth Edmonds, have also left the party. Jo will be a big loss to the Liberal Democrats. The blog Lib Dem Voice paid tribute to her calling Jo “one of our best”, and I wholly concur with that sentiment.
Leading human rights lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, has also quit the party over this issue. I hope their sacrifice will be a wake-up call for the parliamentarians – particularly our MPs – to remember they owe their positions to the party and when the party express a view overwhelmingly that view should be heeded and acted upon.
However in an otherwise good speech to close the spring conference this morning, Nick Clegg said that we are “not a party of protest” any longer.
I disagree. Protest is integral to politics, whether the party is in power or opposition. While there is injustice, inequality and a lack of liberty in society then party activists and members should indeed protest.
The concept of secret courts is an affront to the principle of liberty enshrined in the preamble to our party’s constitution. As Dinah Rose said:
“The very first sentence of the Liberal Democrats’ constitution states that they exist to build a ‘fair, free, and open society’. The vote in favour of secret courts is an attack on the heart and soul of the party.
“The right to a fair hearing, and the right to open justice, are among the most fundamental of all our basic constitutional rights.”
Open courts with juries, and where the press and public can witness proceedings, is as vital a part of democracy as a free press.
If there was ever a court case arising from the death of Azelle Rodney (pictured) who was shot six times in the head by a police firearms officer in 2005, it would most likely be affected by secret courts because the State would argue that intelligence-gathering would be compromised if heard in open court.
However a public inquiry into Rodney’s death is ongoing, and hearings in September last year took place where officers evidence was heard in public.
Another case where intelligence-gathering was a factor was that of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot seven times in the head by a policeman after being mistaken for a suicide bomber in 2005.
The de Menezes inquest heard evidence of the police in public while protecting their anonymity. If ‘secret courts’ makes it into law it is likely that hearings would be held behind closed doors.
It is important that justice is seen to be done and cloaking the law in secrecy undermines the public perception of the criminal justice system. For that reason secret courts need to be opposed.
By Lester Holloway @brolezholloway
