Belhaj & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 03, 2018, [2018] EWHC 977 (Admin)

Issuing Organization:Administrative Court
Actores:Belhaj & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors
Resolution Date:May 03, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Case No: CO/5488/2016

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 977 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 3 May 2018

Before :

LORD JUSTICE IRWIN

MR JUSTICE GREEN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

John McGuinness QC and Tom Little (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant

James Eadie QC and Ben Watson (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the 3rd Interested Party

Zubair Ahmad (instructed by the Special Advocates' Support Office) appeared as Special Advocates

Hearing date: 15th February 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENTREDACTED CLOSED JUDGMENT MOVED INTO OPEN FOLLOWING HEARING ON 15th FEBRUARY 2018

  1. This judgment is the judgment of the Court following a closed hearing on 15 February 2018. It should be read alongside our OPEN judgment arising from the same hearing and dealing with the law, our approach to the law, and the facts so far as they can be rehearsed in OPEN.

  2. The point in issue arises from the submission by the Secretary of State that there have been a number of errors in disclosure of the three key documents (the advice provided to the DPP of Richard Whittam QC, the review note by Sue Hemming and the VRR decision by Gregor McGill). The documents have been identified in OPEN but disclosed only into CLOSED. The Secretary of State has indicated that a number (it is said 8) of examples of ``overclaim'' of legal professional privilege have been corrected, and we have been shown examples of those. Those corrections are in themselves uncontroversial, since of course they lead to greater information being revealed.

  3. The argument arises over a larger number (20) of passages where the Secretary of State argues that material was inadvertently left unredacted in the original disclosure, which should have been redacted on the basis of LPP. These ``underclaims'' were notified by the Secretary of State, and are now sought to be corrected. The fact of this application has been made open in an approved communication to the Claimants' lawyers of 26 January 2018 and a communication request of 7 February 2018 from the Special Advocate which has been made open. No communication has revealed any of the content of an ``overclaim'' or an ``underclaim''.

  4. The timetable of events is summarised in our OPEN judgment and appears in more detail to be as follows. The...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL