This secret hearing procedure is not a new law democratically passed by parliament, but the result of a decision by Lord Chief Justice Taylor in the appeal over the M25 case convictions.

As a junior prosecutor Lord Taylor failed to disclose vital information to the defence in the case of Judith Ward. She was convicted of bombing an army coach in 1974, and only released on appeal in 1992 when the High Court found non disclosed evidence (on a huge scale) that proved her innocence.

The High Court was so shocked at the withholding of evidence in Wards case that it ruled that the defence must, in future, see virtually all the material held by the police and prosecution, suffice to say that Wards case became the standard that others would follow.

Lord Chief Justice Taylor disapproved of the Ward standard, more than most, and set about his own personal agenda to change the Ward standard on disclosure. - He got his chance to do so when he played his hand over the appeal in the M25 case.

The M25 appeal against their convictions was scheduled to be heard in January 1993, in front of Lord Taylor, however it become a hearing over non disclosure instead. Julian Bevan, Q.C. for the prosecution, informed Lord Taylor of some information he wished to withhold from the defence but was not sure whether it ought to be disclosed. He asked Lord Taylor to make the decision as to whether the information should, or should not be disclosed.

Lord Taylor listened to Bevans argument to withhold the material, in a secret hearing. He saw the material and concluded that it was not crucial or helpful and that the prosecution was not obliged to disclose the material, or even the categories of the information. Therefore the applicants, their lawyers and the public were kept in the dark about the information.

Consequently the defence were deprived of the opportunity to decide whether they felt that the information was crucial and helpful to their cause. This was, and is indeed outrageous !

Instead they were told to take the word of the police, prosecution and Court of Appeal that the suppressed information was not important. In other words they were expected to believe the very people they accused of framing them.

The M25 appellants were held legally responsible for the conduct of their defence, but they were not allowed to see relevant material that Lord Taylor, the police and prosecution suppress using Public Interest Immunity Certificates, so called gagging orders.

The refusal to disclose the information using PII certificates also created a rod for critics of the system to beat them with. After all, if the system thought that the information was not important, where was the harm in disclosing it to the defence and letting them make that decision for themselves.

The Judith Ward standard on disclosure had just been reversed ! It had lasted for only eight months ! The M25 case was used to establish a framework for disclosure which meant that the prosecution could apply, even in secret, to the trial judge, for the courts authority to withhold material from the defence.

With his personal agenda complete Lord Taylor then disqualified himself from hearing the M25 appeal claiming he could not sit and judge the facts impartially having seen the material in question.

At the re-scheduled appeal in June 1993 there was a further hearing on disclosure before Deputy Lord Chief Justice Watkins. This resulted in the same conclusions, but Watkins did not disqualify himself from hearing the appeal, and dismissed the appeal before retiring one week later.

It is important to mention that one month before the M25 appeal was scheduled to be heard in June 1993, Julian Bevan Q.C. prosecuted Thomas Style, John Donaldson (also involved in M25 case) and Vernon Attwell for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice over the case of the "Guildford Four".

Disclosure was a key issue in the trial. Mr Justice Macpherson was asked to resolve the issue after seeing the information. He left it for Bevan to decide. The following day Bevan gave the information to the defence which helped the three police officers acquittal.

Moreover at the centre of the Arms to Iraq, Matrix Churchill case, three executives could have gone to prison if the prosecution had been allowed to withhold information stamped with Public Interest Immunity Certificates. However in a sensational move the trial judge ordered the relevant information to be disclosed, and its disclosure secured the three executives acquittal.

While welcoming the willingness to disclose information in these cases it is perplexing. The information clearly had Security Services implications, dealing as they did, with the information about the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, the IRA in particular, and arms sales to Iraq.

If these did not merit national security or public interest community considerations, it is very difficult to justify refusing the disclosure of information to the M25 defence.

All this suggests that there is one law for the police and executives, and another for the rest of us. As such it is highly dangerous to the interest of justice, and a clear abuse of the use of Public Interest Immunity Certificates.

The Matrix Churchill defendants and the former police officers needed disclosure to adequately present their defence and they were fully entitled to it.

However the same is true of the M25 appellants. They should have received the same consideration that the appeal judge gave the Matrix Churchill defendants and that the former Surrey officers received from Bevan.

The failure to act in an even handed manner smacks of a two tier justice system - and that is totally unacceptable.

Mr Raphael Rowe

M25 CASE CAMPAIGN