A New Chapter in the Normalisation of Closed Material Procedures
| Author | Daniella Lock |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12484 |
| Date | 01 January 2020 |
| Published date | 01 January 2020 |
bs_bs_banner
Modern Law Review
DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12484
A New Chapter in the Normalisation of Closed
Material Procedures
Daniella Lock∗
This note provides an analysis of the SupremeCour t decision in Haralambous, which authorised
the use of closed material procedures (CMPs) in proceedings surrounding search and seizure
warrants issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). After presenting
the facts of the case and the reasoning of the Court, the note examines the decision as an
instance of CMP normalisation consistent with the model of normalisation argued for by Eva
Nanopoulos in a previous MLR article. The notes goes on to make the case that Haralambous
may be distinguished from previousinstances of CMP nor malisation on account of the Supreme
Court’s more open acceptance of CMPs in the decision, which signals a new chapter in CMP
normalisation in the UK.
INTRODUCTION
In R (on the application of Haralambous) vCrown Court at St Albans1(Haralambous),
the Supreme Court authorised the use of closed material procedures (CMPs)
in proceedings surrounding search and seizure warrants issued under the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), including judicial review of such
warrants. At first glance, there is nothing surprising about this case insofar as
it conforms to an all-too-familiar pattern, namely the model of CMP normal-
isation advanced by Eva Nanopoulos in a previous MLR article.2While the
case is unremarkable in this sense, it is striking due to the more supportive role
the Supreme Court plays in facilitating this recent spread compared to previous
cases. Two key factors support this view. First, the Court authorises the use of
CMPs in the absence of an explicit statutory basis requiring their use and in
a non-national security context. Second, the reasoning underlying the Court’s
initial authorisation of CMPs is conspicuously underdeveloped. It is true that
the justification for authorising CMPs as a means to ensure effective judicial
review of search and seizure warrants betrays the lack of appealing options
available once the Justices had authorised the use of CMPs in the lower courts.
However, the reasoning for the initial authorisation gives little consideration to
the public interest in setting clear limits on the CMP regime and there is a lack
∗University College London. The author would like to warmly thank Dr Tom Hickman QC and
anonymous MLR reviewers for their invaluable feedback on previous drafts of this note. Any errors
are of the author’s own.
1R (on the application of Haralambous) vCrown Court at St Albans [2018] UKSC 1.
2 See E. Nanopoulos, ‘European Human Rights Lawand the Nor malisation of the ‘Closed Material
Procedure’: Limit or Source?’ (2015) 78 MLR 913.
C2019 The Author.The Moder n Law Review C2019 The Modern Law Review Limited. (2020) 83(1) MLR 202–216
To continue reading
Request your trial