THE trial system for depriving terror suspects of their liberty is critically flawed and in need of reform, a committee of MPs has concluded.

In a report yesterday, the Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee says that the system of “special advocates” used to represent terror suspects in largely closed hearings is defective.

Under the system, a panel of security-vetted barristers is appointed to act for suspects at the hearings to determine if they should continue to be held without charge or prosecution and subject to the Home Secretary’s new “control orders”.

However, the advocates are prevented from talking to the suspects they represent once they have seen the evidence against them.

Urging reform to the system, the MPs say that the special advocates must be allowed to communicate with the suspects so that they can establish whether the allegations or evidence can be challenged and have the opportunity to develop a coherent strategy. They must also be given support by security-cleared staff to help them to research and assess secret material to ensure that suspects obtain a fair trial.

The MPs also condemn the existing method of challenging control orders by a “narrow” judicial review in the courts.

Instead, they call for a new “objective and fairer statutory appeal” system, in which the Home Secretary would have to justify his “reasonable suspicion” that a suspect was involved in terrorism-related activities by showing that he had sufficient evidence.

The MPs also call for an Office of Special Advocates to be set up. This could be staffed by intelligence service personnel to provide support in the handling of secret material.

The report comes after an inquiry into the use of special advocates and the lessons learnt from the experience of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, where they operate, over some years.

A group of nine of the thirteen current special advocates submitted written evidence to the committee condemning the present system.

Alan Beith, the Liberal Democrat MP for Berwick and chairman of the committee, said: “The Special Advocate system lacks the most basic features that make for a fair trial. It was devised for immigration cases involving security as an alternative to a process that was even more unsatisfactory.

“Once it was applied to the Belmarsh detention cases and the new control orders, its defects became much more significant.”

He said that, if security considerations required the use of a special system, then he would have preferred the use of an investigating judge rather than special advocates.

If special advocates are used, there must be some communication between them and their clients, even after they have seen the special advocates and their clients, even after “closed” material — that is the sensitive restricted material — has been seen. Mr Beith added that it should be possible to construct appropriate safeguards to ensure national security in such circumstances and this is essential to bring some fairness into the special advocate system.

During the inquiry the Attorney-General pledged more support and training for the special advocates, including the appointment of security-vetted solicitors to help to sift the evidence. He also agreed that in future they would be appointed through open competition.

• The 800-year-old “double jeopardy” rule, which prevents anyone being tried twice for the same crime, will end today in England and Wales. People who have been acquitted of offences will now find themselves back in the dock if “new and compelling evidence” is found. The change will apply retrospectively.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads