Secret trial

Last updated

A secret trial is a trial that is not open to the public or generally reported in the news, especially any in-trial proceedings. Generally, no official record of the case or the judge's verdict is made available. Often there is no indictment.

Contents

Secret trials have been characteristic of many dictatorships in the modern era, but are also used in many democratic nations, with the explanation of being necessary for national security. They are a hotly debated topic in many circles, but are generally accepted in the western world as they are seen as protecting the "greater good".

Australia

It is possible that some wholly-secret trials occurred in Australia during World War I or World War II. [1] In the 21st century, several secret trials have occurred or are set to occur in Australia:

Soviet Union

Although the Great Purges in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin are best remembered for the Moscow Trials, show trials in which the court became a parody of justice, most of the victims of the Terror were tried in secret. Mikhail Tukhachevsky and his fellow Red Army officers were tried in secret by a military tribunal, and their executions were announced only after the fact. The presiding judge of the Moscow Trials, Vasili Ulrikh, also presided over large numbers of secret trials, lasting only a few minutes, in which he would quickly speak his way through a pre-formulated charge and verdict.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, one of the most notorious secret courts was the Star Chamber under King Charles I of England in the early 17th century. The abuses of the Star Chamber were one of the rallying points of the opposition that organized around Oliver Cromwell and ultimately resulted in the execution of the deposed king. The term "star chamber" became a generalized term for a court that was accountable to no one (except the chief executive) and was used to suppress political dissent or eliminate the enemies of the regime.

R v Incedal and Rarmoul-Bouhadjar (2014) was to be the first British trial to be held entirely in secret. [3] However, the Court of Appeal blocked full secrecy. [4]

United States

The FISA Courts of the national intelligence apparatus are by design secret courts and are empowered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to conduct secret trials and to impose secret punishments. Counsel arguing in the court are also subject to a secrecy order against disclosure of information about any cases in front of the court. Individuals who have been targeted in the court are also subjected to secrecy orders. The court sits ex parte , in the absence of anyone but the judge and the government present at the hearings. That, combined with the minimal number of requests that are rejected by the court, has led experts to characterize it as a rubber stamp; the former National Security Agency analyst Russ Tice called it a "kangaroo court with a rubber stamp". [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court</span> U.S. federal court

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also called the FISA Court, is a U.S. federal court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

<i>ABC trial</i> 1978 UK criminal trial

The ABC Trial was a United Kingdom trial conducted in the 1970s, of three men for offences under section 2 and of one of these men, a scholarly journalist, for the offence under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The men were two libertarian journalists of a similar political viewpoint as much of the Labour government, and a resigned GCHQ source seeking to heighten scrutiny of government-authorised wire-tapping and limit the work of the American agency, the CIA, in Britain. These aims were furthered in the following two decades achieved through detailed parliamentary scrutiny into and regular reports as to the work of security services, a Freedom of Information Committee and regulation of wire-tapping. Aside from very limited reportage from the Central Criminal Court, its early analysis comes in the account of one of its investigative-journalist defendants, Duncan Campbell, in the annual journal The Socialist Register.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</span> 1978 United States federal law

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and the collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security. United States v. Reynolds, which involved alleged military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures granted increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, December 31, 2005, for most of the title's provisions. This was extended twice: on December 22, 2005 the sunset clause expiration date was extended to February 3, 2006 and on February 2 of the same year it was again extended, this time to March 10.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Project MINARET</span>

Project MINARET was a domestic espionage project operated by the National Security Agency (NSA), which, after intercepting electronic communications that contained the names of predesignated US citizens, passed them to other government law enforcement and intelligence organizations. Intercepted messages were disseminated to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), and the Department of Defense. The project was a sister project to Project SHAMROCK.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reggie Walton</span> American judge

Reggie Barnett Walton is a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He is a former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)</span> Part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — refers to the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, the phone calls, Internet activity, text messages and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lay within the U.S.

The Liquiçá Church massacre was a mass-killing that occurred in April 1999, during East Timor's bid for independence. It was the first case to be heard by the Second Special Panel.

The American Bar Association passed resolutions on the USA PATRIOT Act that asked the U.S. Government "to conduct a thorough review of the implementation of the powers granted to the Executive Branch under the Act before considering legislation that would extend or further expand such powers ...." and "to conduct regular and timely oversight including public hearings ... to ensure that government investigations undertaken pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ... do not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution ...." They also set up a website to discuss issues in relation to the Act, and thus the Patriot Debates were born, where various people debated specific sections.

Clyde Roger Vinson is a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Until May 3, 2013, he was also a member of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bernard Collaery</span>

Bernard Joseph Edward Collaery is an Australian barrister, lawyer and former politician. Collaery was a member of the Australian Capital Territory's first Legislative Assembly for the Residents Rally party, from 1989 to 1992. He served as Deputy Chief Minister and Attorney-General from 1989 to 1991 in the Kaine Alliance Government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PRISM</span> Mass surveillance program run by the NSA

PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies. The program is also known by the SIGAD US-984XN. PRISM collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google LLC under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms. Among other things, the NSA can use these PRISM requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier, and to get data that is easier to handle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass surveillance in the United States</span> Overview of mass surveillance in the United States of America

The practice of mass surveillance in the United States dates back to wartime monitoring and censorship of international communications from, to, or which passed through the United States. After the First and Second World Wars, mass surveillance continued throughout the Cold War period, via programs such as the Black Chamber and Project SHAMROCK. The formation and growth of federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA institutionalized surveillance used to also silence political dissent, as evidenced by COINTELPRO projects which targeted various organizations and individuals. During the Civil Rights Movement era, many individuals put under surveillance orders were first labelled as integrationists, then deemed subversive, and sometimes suspected to be supportive of the communist model of the United States' rival at the time, the Soviet Union. Other targeted individuals and groups included Native American activists, African American and Chicano liberation movement activists, and anti-war protesters.

A transparency report is a statement issued on a regular basis by a company, disclosing a variety of statistics related to requests for user data, records, or content. Transparency reports generally disclose how frequently and under what authority governments have requested or demanded data or records over a certain period of time. This form of corporate transparency allows the public to discern what private information governments have gained access to through search warrants and court subpoenas, among other methods. Some transparency reports describe how often, as a result of government action or under copyright provisions, content was removed. Disclosing a transparency report also helps people to know about the appropriate scope and authority of content regulation for online discussions. Google first launched a transparency report in 2010, with Twitter following in 2012. Additional companies began releasing transparency reports as during the aftermath of the global surveillance disclosures beginning in 2013, and the number of companies issuing them has increased rapidly ever since. Transparency reports are issued today by a variety of technology and communications companies, including Google, Microsoft, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter, Apple, Dropbox, Facebook, Yahoo and CloudFlare. Several companies and advocacy groups have lobbied the U.S. government to allow the number of secret data requests to be described within ranges in the report.

In Re Electronic Privacy Information Center, 134 S.Ct. 638 (2013), was a direct petition to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) telephony metadata collection program. On July 8, 2013, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, or a writ of certiorari, to vacate an order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in which the court compelled Verizon to produce telephony metadata records from all of its subscribers' calls and deliver those records to the NSA. On November 18, 2013, the Supreme Court denied EPIC's petition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia–East Timor spying scandal</span>

The Australia–East Timor spying scandal began in 2004 when the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) clandestinely planted covert listening devices in a room adjacent to the East Timor (Timor-Leste) Prime Minister's Office at Dili, to obtain information in order to ensure Australia held the upper hand in negotiations with East Timor over the rich oil and gas fields in the Timor Gap. Even though the East Timor government was unaware of the espionage operation undertaken by Australia, negotiations were hostile. The first Prime Minister of East Timor, Mari Alkatiri, bluntly accused the Howard Government of plundering the oil and gas in the Timor Sea, stating:

"Timor-Leste loses $1 million a day due to Australia's unlawful exploitation of resources in the disputed area. Timor-Leste cannot be deprived of its rights or territory because of a crime."

Open justice is a legal principle that requires that judicial proceedings be conducted in a transparent manner and with the oversight of the people, so as to safeguard the rights of those subject to the power of the court and to allow for the scrutiny of the public in general. The term has particular emphasis in legal systems based on British law, such as in the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries such as South Africa and Canada and Australia, and former British colonies such as the United States. The term has several closely related meanings: it is seen as a fundamental right guaranteeing liberty; it describes guidelines for how courts can be more transparent; and it sometimes identifies an ideal situation. In a courtroom, it means steps to promote transparency such as letting the public see and hear trials as they happen in real time, televising trials as they happen, videotaping proceedings for later viewing, publishing the content and documents of court files, providing transcripts of statements, making past decisions available for review in an easy-to-access format, publishing decisions, and giving reporters full access to files and participants so they can report what happens. The principle includes efforts to try to make what happens in the court understandable to the public and the press.

Witness J, also known by the pseudonyms Alan Johns and Prisoner 123458, is a former Australian intelligence officer who was subject to a secret trial, and secret imprisonment in 2018, for supposedly breaching Australian national security laws. His case came to light following an Australian Federal Police raid of his jail cell seeking a memoir that he had previously received official permission to write about his experiences. This led to him bringing a claim for breach of his human rights.

David William McBride is an Australian whistleblower and former British Army major and Australian Army lawyer. From 2014 to 2016 McBride provided the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with information about war crimes allegedly committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The ABC broadcast details in 2017. In 2018, he was charged with several offences related to his whistleblowing, and is awaiting trial. The war crime allegations were reviewed in the Brereton Report.

References

  1. "Witness J case unprecedented says national security watchdog | The Canberra Times | Canberra, ACT". 4 March 2020.
  2. "Witness J case unprecedented says national security watchdog | The Canberra Times | Canberra, ACT". 4 March 2020.
  3. "Secret trial plan for English court". BBC News. 4 June 2014.
  4. "Fully secret terror trial blocked by Court of Appeal". BBC News. 12 June 2014.
  5. Ackerman, Spencer (June 6, 2013). "Fisa Chief Judge Defends Integrity of Court over Verizon Records Collection – Reggie Walton Tells The Guardian Claims Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 'Is a Rubber Stamp [Are] Absolutely False' – Revealed: NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily". The Guardian . Retrieved July 11, 2013.