Abstract
The rise in secret courts or ‘closed material proceedings’ (CMPs) in recent years has called into question our commitment to long-cherished principles of open justice and due process. This debate has somewhat overshadowed the role of special advocates, who are appointed to represent the interests of parties excluded from such hearings. These advocates pose a challenge to the traditions of advocacy in the adversarial system but an international consensus across the common law world appears to be emerging that they may be justified on human rights grounds of fairness in that they bring a measure of procedural fairness to closed material proceedings. This paper examines this claim and considers the extent to which the rise of special advocates poses a threat to the adversarial tradition.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
