The issue of secret trials seems to have drifted out of the news over recent years but I thought this raised quite a lot of questions. A trial in which we are party to 1/7th of the evidence in spite of the defendant being acquitted.

I can appreciate the need for protection of undercover sources and intelligence gathering operations but it seems absurd to me to consider that a trial like this could have deprived a man of the remainder of his life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31989581

Or, conversely, have been conducted as a result of loss of other lives. Either pre- arrest, or, the potential for a life threatening event in the future.
I’m all in favour of our freedom of the press situation, by the way, but also believe there have to be occasional, exceptional , circumstances.

I’m all in favour of our freedom of the press situation, by the way, but also believe there have to be occasional, exceptional , circumstances.

Absolutely not. The ‘authorities’ have a bad record of mission creep where some wriggle room is left in legislation. All the i’s and t’s need to be in order and a culture of if it isn’t in the legislation then it isn’t allowed should be in force.
See use of RIPA to spy on journalists, secret services spying on MP’s

The ‘authorities’ have a bad record of mission creep where some wriggle room is left in legislation.

…and from the article that seems to be the case with secret trials

The Times’s crime and security editor, Sean O’Neill, was also on the inside. He says the enforced secrecy ran against the basic instincts of every reporter.
“It’s been very difficult,” he says.
“I have always been unhappy with the idea of being an ‘accredited journalist’ – accredited by the state to cover a trial. I have become more and more uncomfortable with that as the process has gone on – particularly this business of handing your notebook to a counter-terrorism police officer every day and having it locked in a safe.
“It’s a deeply unhealthy process.
“There is a lot that we have heard in court that should not have been secret and should be aired in public and scrutinised.

During one discussion he talked about getting a gun and bullets, using the code “sausage and sauce”.

Now I’m no MI5 spymaster, but if you’re a member of a certain faith which is not permitted to eat the vast majority of sausages, why would you choose that item as code for something desirable during your criminal conversations?

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

if you’re a member of a certain faith which is not permitted to eat the vast majority of sausages, why would you choose that item as code for something desirable during your criminal conversations?

You’ve never had Sucuk then? You’re missing out, it’s delicious!

As above, Halal sausages exist !

Perfectly reasonable for the trial to be held with reporting restrictions. Remember most (although not all) of the evidence was heard by the 10 journalists they just cannot report it publicly.

Remember most (although not all) of the evidence was heard by the 10 journalists they just cannot report it publicly.

But they say that “a lot” of the information wasn’t of a type which required secrecy – that’s rather the point.

That’s a brilliant defence though. “No I’m not a terrorist- I’m planning an armed robbery!”

To be fair they say they think a lot of the information did not require secrecy perhaps they are not best placed to judge. The point surely is this was a jury trial all the evidence was placed before a jury . The press witnessed the vast majority of the case the defendant was acquitted . Not exactly “the Star Chamber”. I am however very concerned by our drift towards secret trials especially in the Special Imigration Tribunals were the applicant can face a scenario where he is not even allowed to know the allegations made against him and his own lawyer can be excluded from parts of the hearing or prohibited from telling his client parts of the evidence.