I think that I am right in saying that the noble Lord represented successful appellants in the case to which he referred. Certainly we would take the view that the special advocate system and disclosure procedures are designed to ensure justice for individuals in difficult circumstances when, as the noble Lord recognises, public interest material cannot be disclosed. The special advocate system has been in effect for some time. With regard to the specific case, applying the AF judgment to asset freezing, the noble Lord is right that there is a relation to control orders, but the Government do not consider that there is an automatic read-across to all other proceedings involving the use of closed material for special advocates. It is fair to say that the requirements of fairness, which are vital, will vary according to the context and gravity of the consequences for the individual. It is engrained in both domestic and European Convention of Human Rights jurisprudence that fairness is context and fact specific. In the case before the Grand Chamber against the UK that immediately preceded the AF case, the point that it can vary was made. That is no doubt a matter to which we will return when we deal with the issue of special advocates under a later amendment.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 October 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
721 c151 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:25:54 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666516
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666516
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_666516