This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/12/secret-terror-trial-ab-cd-public-court

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Key elements of secret terror trial can be heard in public, court rules Key elements of secret terror trial can be heard in public, court rules
(35 minutes later)
An attempt by the Crown Prosecution Service to hold a terrorism trial entirely in secret has been overturned by the court of appeal.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.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-Bohadjar, who was CD.They can now be named as Erol Incedal, who was AB, and Mounir Rarmoul-Bohadjar, 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 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.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.In their decision, the judges said the "core" part of the trial must take place in secret.
But, they accepted, the opening section of the trial including the reading of the charges and the opening of the prosecution could be heard in public. The judges also ruled that the defendants should be named.But, they accepted, the opening section of the trial including the reading of the charges and the opening of the prosecution could be heard in public. The judges also ruled that the defendants should be named.
Gross said: "We are not persuaded that there would be a risk to the administration of justice" if some of the opening of the trial were heard in open court.Gross said: "We are not persuaded that there would be a risk to the administration of justice" if some of the opening of the trial were heard in open court.
The swearing in of the jury, reading the charges, part of the judge's introductory remarks and part of the prosecution opening remarks would be reportable.The swearing in of the jury, reading the charges, part of the judge's introductory remarks and part of the prosecution opening remarks would be reportable.
The verdicts at the end of the trial can be reported as well as, probably, any convictions and sentencing – although the latter could be subject to further legal argument.The verdicts at the end of the trial can be reported as well as, probably, any convictions and sentencing – although the latter could be subject to further legal argument.
Gross added: "We express grave concern as to the cumulative effects of holding a trial in camera and anonymising the defendants. We find it difficult to conceive of a situation where both departures from open justice will be justified … We are not persuaded of any such justification in the present case."Gross added: "We express grave concern as to the cumulative effects of holding a trial in camera and anonymising the defendants. We find it difficult to conceive of a situation where both departures from open justice will be justified … We are not persuaded of any such justification in the present case."
The application for an entirely secret trial was supported by certificates from the home secretary, Theresa May, and the foreign secretary, William Hague, stating that it was required on the grounds of national security.
The court of appeal authorised "a small number of accredited journalists drawn from the media parties to these proceedings" to attend the "bulk" of the secret part of the hearing.
They will not be allowed to report what they witness until the situation is reviewed at the end of the case. Any notes made will have to be stored in court. The proposal was made by ministers. A transcript of the case could also be released eventually following further legal argument.
"Open justice is both a fundamental principle of the law and a means of ensuring public confidence in our justice system," Gross said. "Exceptions are rare and must be justified on the facts. Any such exceptions must be necessary and proportionate."
A spokesman for the attorney general said: "The principle of open justice is key to the British legal system and trials will always be held in public unless there are very strong reasons for doing otherwise.
"The measures applied for by the CPS in this case were, they believed, justified in order for the trial to proceed and for the defendants to hear the evidence against them while protecting national security.
"We are pleased that the court recognised the strength of some of these arguments, and that the case can go ahead. The CPS has indicated it accepts the judgment of the court, and will tailor its approach to the prosecution accordingly."