Justice and Security Act 2013

Justice and Security Act 2013
Sodacan · CC BY-SA 3.0 · source
Title	Justice and Security Act 2013
Enacted by	Parliament of the United Kingdom
Year	2013
Statute book chapter	2013 c. 18
Royal assent	2013
Territorial extent	England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland

Contents

Justice and Security Act 2013

The Act is a United Kingdom statute enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with royal assent in 2013 during the term of the Coalition government of the United Kingdom (2010–2015), following debates involving the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. It amended existing law relating to closed material procedures used in Inquests in England and Wales, civil litigation, and tribunal proceedings, drawing attention from the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights, and campaign groups such as Liberty (advocacy group), Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Background and Legislative Context

The Act emerged from inquiries and reviews triggered by cases including the Binyam Mohamed litigation, the Afghanistan detainee allegations, the Belhaj and Boudchar litigation and the Al-Skeini inquest, and followed recommendations in the Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. It responded to tensions between principles articulated in the European Court of Human Rights judgments, obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and national security claims asserted by Secret Intelligence Service, Government Communications Headquarters, and the Ministry of Defence. The legislative package was drafted amid interventions from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, and prominent senior judges including members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Act created a statutory framework for the use of closed material procedures in certain civil proceedings and inquests by establishing a role for Special Advocates drawn from the Bar of England and Wales, regulated by the Lord Chancellor and overseen by the Senior Courts of England and Wales. It inserted provisions into the Inquiries Act 2005 and modified evidential rules in proceedings involving national security claims advanced by departments such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office. The Act also created new obligations for disclosure to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and adjusted judicial review remedies available in actions against the Crown Prosecution Service and state agencies, referencing procedural models from cases in the European Court of Human Rights and comparative practice in the United States Supreme Court and Supreme Court of Canada.

Critics from Liberty (advocacy group), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and leading Senior Counsel argued the Act risked incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, particularly concerning the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Academic commentators from institutions such as University of Oxford, London School of Economics, University College London, and Cambridge University published critiques comparing the statute to mechanisms considered in the United States District Court and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms context. Proponents citing the Security Service (MI5), Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), and GCHQ argued the provisions were necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods in litigation about alleged wrongs such as rendition claims involving the United States Department of Defense.

The Act's compatibility with human rights conventions and domestic law was tested in litigation before the High Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, with interveners including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and international NGOs such as Reprieve (organisation). Claims raised under the Human Rights Act 1998 and judicial review challenges invoked precedents from the House of Lords era and leading judgments such as those of the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving closed material procedures. The courts grappled with balancing state secrecy asserted by Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office against procedural fairness standards developed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and comparative rulings from the European Court of Human Rights.

Debates in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and the House of Lords featured contributions from ministers including the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (2010–2016), the Lord Chancellor, opposition figures in the Labour Party (UK), members of the Liberal Democrats (UK), and backbench crossbench peers. Parliamentary committees such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs scrutinised the Bill alongside submissions from Bar Council and Law Society of England and Wales. Media outlets including the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, and Financial Times reported protests by civil society groups and commentary from legal academics at King's College London and the University of Edinburgh.

Following enactment, departments including the Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service updated guidance and inter-agency protocols; the Judicial Office issued directions affecting the High Court of Justice and tribunal judges. Special Advocate appointments were formalised through competitions regulated by the Bar Council and oversight by the Legal Services Board, while training drew on expertise from the Attorney General's Office and academic centres such as the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.

Subsequent legislative and policy developments involved scrutiny during later Parliaments and references in debates on counter-terrorism statutes such as the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and proposals considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Judicial interpretations evolved in later cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, while advocacy by Liberty (advocacy group), Amnesty International and legal academics continued to press for statutory reform and clearer safeguards to align the framework with international human rights jurisprudence.