Discuss the arguments for and against the use of Closed Material Term Paper

Discuss the arguments for and against the use of Closed Material Procedures (CMP) in national security matters - Term Paper ExampleThus, courts in many cases, have to deny access of specific documents or information to individuals, from the point of view of public interest. Though such measures have been introduced with the primary pleasure ground game of safeguarding public interest, the issue of CMP has become a controversial topic due to its far-reaching implication of the criminal justice system as a whole. In regular court proceedings, individuals and their judicial representatives are allowed to be present and audition all the documents that are allowed as evidences in a case during the trial and such proceedings are known as open procedure. However, in cases where the examination of any documents by individuals is considered as a breach of national security, individuals are not allowed to examine the relevant document and such materials are known as closed materials.3 Ho wever, a government appointed lawyer, who represents the individual, or Special Advocate, will be allowed to flow all parts of the proceedings and extended access to all the documents examined during the trial.4 This is to ensure that the government preserves a strong and independent judiciary to protect the rights and independence of its citizens.5 On the other hand, the government has a primary responsibility for protecting national security to guarantee the safety and security of the citizens. Thus, it becomes significant that the government strikes a balance between the protection of national security and safeguarding the rights and license of individuals. The debate regarding CMPs, thus, focuses its attention on protecting the national security without injuring or compromising the concepts of the freedom of individuals and facilitating them a fair trial. One of the main arguments against CMPs is that the system of suppressing material is inherently unfair and that a hearing that disallows individuals from being present or examining the documents undermines the credibility of the legal system.6 The opponents of CMPs further argue that the system of allowing the prosecution, usually represented by the government, to present its case without extending the defence an opportunity of public scrutiny is against the principles of justice.7 They also contend that apart from the inherent risks associated with CMP, it considerably reduces the degree of judicial and Ministerial scrutiny of how the cases are tried and this can have a detrimental effect on transparentness and accountability of justice system as well as compromise its credibility.8 Thus, the main argument against CMPs relies on the premise that this practice undermines the concept of fair trial to individuals as in this system they are not allowed to examine all the documents that the prosecution relies on for the purpose of proving their case. It is needless to mention that when a suspect is disal lowed the opportunity of viewing a prosecution document, it necessarily pre-empts him or her from properly preparing his or her defence. Thus, this procedure, to a