Cameron defies the critics over controversial plans to bring in secret courts, despite warnings it will undermine democracy

Proposals provoked a storm of protest from the legal profession and civil liberties campaigners

Challenged by the Mail over the protests yesterday, the Prime Minister said: ‘I fundamentally disagree'

Controversial: David Cameron yesterday mounted an outspoken defence of the Government's controversial plans for 'secret justice'

David Cameron yesterday mounted an outspoken defence of the Government’s controversial plans for ‘secret justice’, despite warnings that it will undermine democracy.



Proposals for sweeping new powers which would allow the Government to withhold ‘sensitive’ information from open civil court cases and inquests have provoked a storm of protest from the legal profession and civil liberties campaigners.



Even the ‘special advocates’ who would oversee the secret hearings have warned that the changes have the potential to damage the public interest.



Challenged by the Mail over the protests yesterday, the Prime Minister said: ‘I fundamentally disagree.’



He insisted that the plans were needed to prevent terror suspects making compensation claims against the security services in cases that involved sensitive intelligence material.

But he made no attempt to justify the proposal to extend secret hearings to inquests, leaving the door open to a possible compromise on that part of the plan.

At a press conference in Brussels Mr Cameron said: ‘The situation today is that people from anywhere in the world can make accusations against our security service and we are completely unable to hear those cases in court and produce the intelligence or information that would allow people who work for our country to defend themselves.

‘So we end up having to pay out often multi-million sums to people who often may be making completely unfounded allegations against our security services.



‘We need to have a legal way of hearing this information in court. Other countries do so.’

Concern: The security services have been pressing for the secrecy measures in the wake of the case of former Guantanamo Bay inmate Binyam Mohamed who sued the Government for complicity in torture

He said the restrictions would apply in only a ‘very, very small number of cases’.

He added: ‘It is absolutely essential we find a way for doing it in our criminal justice system and we can protect our national security in that way.



‘What we can’t have is either a situation where we have to go on making these payouts and not having court cases at all, or having open court [hearings] where we’d have to reveal intelligence information which would harm our national security, harm our relationship with other vital national security partners.



‘This is the right way forward. I’m absolutely convinced we can win the argument and win the argument with anyone who has civil liberties concerns.’



The security services have been pressing for the secrecy measures in the wake of the case of former Guantanamo Bay inmate Binyam Mohamed who sued the Government for complicity in torture. Labour ministers tried to conceal documents disclosing his alleged mistreatment, but were overruled by the courts.



Critics claim the new measures would have allowed ministers to cover up scandals surrounding cases such as the 7/7 bombings, the police shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, who was mistaken for a terrorist, and a number of deaths caused by so-called ‘friendly fire’ in Iraq.



Last night they warned that the proposals were much more far-reaching than the Prime Minister had suggested.



Former shadow home secretary David Davis said courts were already able to deal with sensitive information through the existing system of public immunity interest certificates, which are decided by judges, rather than ministers.



Mr Davis went on: ‘British judges are certainly not dupes of Al Qaeda. They are every bit as patriotic as ministers are.



‘They are also wholly impartial in their judgments, which cannot be said of the Government when it is a party to the case. They are certainly significantly more impartial than the foreign agencies who wish to limit the scope of British justice to protect their own interests.’

