When is a trial not a trial? *UPDATED*
Well, I guess there are many answers to that question, but in this case it's when the trial magically transforms itself into a pre-trial hearing. I'm referring here to the case of David Keogh and Leo O'Connor who are accused of violating the Official Secrets Act by leaking the Al Jazeera memo.
What little media coverage there was of this case showed that the actual trial of these two men was to take place on October 9. First The Guardian:
That seems pretty straightforward to me, and yet on October 9 when the case reached the Old Bailey, things seem to have changed.
David Keogh and Leo O'Connor, both from Northampton, have been charged under the Official Secrets Act.
It is alleged that Mr Keogh passed a memo of a meeting between US President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to Mr O'Connor.
Both men deny the charges and the trial will take place on April 18 next year.
Mr Justice Aikens ordered that the preparatory session was held in camera following his earlier ruling that the press and public should not hear parts of the case which could affect national security.
I'm certainly no legal expert but this strikes me as very odd, especially as the BBC had also announced the actual trial date as being on October 9 and had already reported the pre-trial hearings. From January 2006 we have this:
Cabinet Office communications officer David Keogh, 49, and Leo O'Connor, 42, both of Northampton, were remanded on bail at the pre-trial hearing.
[...]
The men will next appear in court on 25 April.
Fast forward to 25 April and the BBC provide us with this:
David Keogh, 49, and Leo O'Connor, 42, denied three charges under the Official Secrets Act and were given conditional bail. They will face trial in October.
[...]
The pair will return to the Old Bailey for another hearing before the trial judge in July. The trial itself is set for 9 October.
That seems pretty straightforward too. So what has changed to suddenly turn the trial into yet another pre-trial hearing? We are now being told that the actual trial will take place on April 18 next year. We have not been told that the trial has been postponed or delayed for any reason, just this revision of dates. There has been no media coverage to explain this. Apart from the BBC report the only other coverage I have found so far is in the Washington Post and the Edmonton Sun.
Could it possibly be that the Government has not so far found a way to successfully prosecute David Keogh and Leo O'Connor and needs more time, or has it realised that the case might well make the Al Jazeera memo become public? That would never do just before America's mid-term elections.
Another thing to consider is that a separate case is being brought to court in the United States in which the Widow of a murdered Al Jazeera journalist has filed a lawsuit against the Bush administration for bombing the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera in 2003. The longer the delay in a trial here in the UK, the more chance there is of the memo being made public in the USA.
*UPDATE*
The Guardian has a more comprehensive report.
[...]
In his published ruling, Old Bailey judge Mr Justice Aikens accepted the government's case that disclosing the contents of the memo would have a "detrimental impact" on "diplomatic and political relations" between the UK and the US. This in turn would have "serious consequences" for "the national safety or national security of the United Kingdom in the current international situation".
The media were barred from a pre-trial meeting held in private yesterday. Defence lawyers did not say what was discussed but afterwards voiced their objections to the secrecy. Mark Stephens, who is acting for al-Jazeera, said: "The bottom line is that there is no national security involvement [in the case]. What is being protected from us is evidence of a war crime." The "war crime" reference was to the alleged talk of bombing al-Jazeera.
Mr Stephens is appealing to Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, over the government's refusal to release the memo under the Freedom of Information Act. Lawyers for Mr Keogh and Mr O'Connor, who are on bail, said they could not comment on yesterday's hearing. However, it is understood they too have raised the issue of war crimes. Neil Clark, Mr O'Connor's solicitor, has said that having read the memo, he did not believe it could embarrass the British government.
The judge's ruling makes clear that government lawyers obtained a certificate from Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, in March last year calling for a secret trial. But the necessary certificate from the foreign secretary was only obtained this July, shortly after Margaret Beckett took over from Jack Straw.
No date has been set for the trial.
So according to the Guardian the BBC's claim that the new date for the trial is April 18 next year is wrong if they are saying a date hasn't even been set. The Government is claiming the need for secrecy is to do with national security (apparantly embarrasment is a national security issue), something which is disputed by lawyers for Al Jazeera and the two defendants. However, only the contents of the memo are required to be kept secret if I understand Mr Justice Aikens ruling correctly so other details of the trial such as any delays, for example should be availabe to the public. Yet the Government seems to be arguing that the whole trial be kept secret. Perhaps this explains the delay. The sooner someone leaks the damned memo the better.
There are plenty of
There are plenty of innocuous reasons why trials get delayed, either on behalf of the prosecution or the defence or the court system itself.
Even "normal" trials are shrouded in mystery, mosttly due last minute changes in schedules, and because things like trial transcripts are not made public, and anything to do with court records is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
That is the joy of secrecey, even innocent actions start to look suspicious to outside observers.
I realise that there may
I realise that there may have been an innocuous reason for a delay and that trials often get delayed for various reasons, but the point I was trying to make was that there was no mention of a delay at all. What had been announced as a trial was reported as being a pre-trial hearing as if that had been the case all along. Perhaps when a delay is necessary the original date automatically becomes a pre-trial hearing.
If the BBC had reported that the trial had been delayed for scheduling problems, unpreparedness or other technical difficulties, I would have been less suspicious. The Beeb wouldn't even have had to elaborate on what the difficulties were, which might well have violated the secrecy order which Mr Justice Aikens ruled on in July. Or they could have reported that they were forbidden from disclosing the reasons for a delay.
Unless of course the secrecy order is so tight that that the merest mention of a delay in the proceedings would be a violation. That is also pretty disturbing and bound to arouse suspicions. However, I do accept the point that with secrecy innocent actions can start to look suspicious to outside observers.
Sorry to rain on your parade
Sorry to rain on your parade but I don't think any conspiracy theories are needed here. Pre-trial hearings are normal. The objective is to ensure an efficient trial by clearing away as many issues as possible. The parties may, for example, ask the judge for rulings on points of law which may clarify matters and simplify the trial. The judge may persuade the parties to agree key facts, which will limit the scope of the trial. So I don't know the answer to your riddle "when is a trial not a trial", but I don't think it's the answer you are postulating. There's certainly no magic about it. Nor is there any mystique to the "in camera" bit. Pre-trial hearings are normally private. In this case, it is likely that the press and public will be excluded from parts of the actual trial for "national security" reasons, but that's a different matter. The BBC is doing a bit of post hoc nec propter hoc reasoning here, probably just to make it sound more dramatic than it is.
As for the delays, and the idea that the Government would prefer the memo to be made public - if at all - in America first, there might be more to your theory. However I can't see any reason why the judge would accomodate nakedly political objectives, so the Crown Prosecution Service would have to have a pretty good procedural excuse. That is if, indeed, we believe the CPS takes political orders from on high. I don't rule that out but, lawyers being what we are, a government giving such orders would risk severe embarrassment if a lawyer gets on his ethical high horse and objects to being so used.
There are more Socialist lawyers than one might expect (our training helps us hold mutually-exclusive ideas simultaneously, which is important for believing in such arrant nonsense), but - John Mortimer is a good example - they tend to be admirably tedious about playing the game by its rules, rather than rigging it too shamelessly for political ends.
It's not a very exciting
It's not a very exciting conspiracy theory to see why it's helpful for the prosecution to delay this trial. Personally, i think American voters have plenty of reading matter with the Woodward book, and there's bound to be more revalations in the run-up to the November elections. But I wouldn't rule out the delaying tactic of keeping troublesome whistleblowers/enemy combatants inside for longer than usual. TomPaine, you yourself have remarked on creeping internment in the war on terror, and I think we are seeing that in a number of cases, not the extreme Gitmo/rendition saga, but those going through regular domestic courts.
Just when is some responsible person going to properly leak this bloody memo? Finding out what was said - that's the real matter of national security.
Details of another trial
Details of another trial which was scheduled to commence on 9th October 2006, but was delayed (on 6th October) until January 2007.
Operation Vivace Trial.
This trial of 5 people is the first trial associated with the July 21st London non-bombs. There are still another 38 detained people to be subject to trial, only 17 of whom have been charged to date.
One suspects political/government meddling, rather than judicial scheduling issues.....
Where are the Aikens
Where are the Aikens rulings?