Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the bald choice that he is trying to make between national security and the administration of justice certainly applies when one is considering a public interest immunity certificate, because that removes the evidence completely from the consideration of the courts in the interests of national security? But the Wiley test that he referred to just does not apply when one is dealing with closed material procedures because there is a perfectly good argument—the right hon. Gentleman may not accept it—that the administration of justice is better served by at least the judge hearing all the evidence than the evidence being completely withdrawn and not being able to be taken into account at all.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Malcolm Rifkind
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 March 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Justice and Security Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
559 c692 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-07-28 11:40:20 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-03-04/1303049000344
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-03-04/1303049000344
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-03-04/1303049000344