Interesting snippet in The Times leader today...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2442556,00.html

Had it not been for a determined effort by this newspaper, together with the BBC and the Associated Press, no detail of what Barot was planning or of his sentence could have been made public. Confronted with overwhelming evidence, he pleaded guilty. But seven co-accused are currently on trial, and the courts had refused to lift any reporting restrictions for fear of prejudicing trials that may not end for two years.

Surely it is in the 'public interest' that we are kept informed of any success the security services have in nailing the terrorists in our midst ?

And their failures of course. How many secret trials have there been that have not ended in a successful prosecution, - will we ever know ?

The whole idea of secret trials evokes an atmosphere of Stalinist Russia and seems quite out of place in our 'model' democracy.

Depends on the details.

To take an example; suppose these guys had become aware of sensitive details in Britain's security setup. If the trial is made public, those details becomes public knowledge, which is NOT a good thing.


In general, I'd agree with you; but there *are* some issues which should not be made public, and it's quite possible that some of them turned up in this trial.