- Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:09 am
To be fair, the only reason which the papers were up in arms & making martyrs from the situation around super injunctions was because they might be stopped from publishing trashy stories which may not be in the public interest. It's not like you just apply for one, pay a fee and get it - it needs to go through a whole process and decided by a judge. The process is essentially a private one, and has associated costs so unfortunately will only viably be utilised by those who can afford it.
Regarding secret courts:
"How did you catch the terrorist?"
"We used surveillance methods which are legal, but undisclosed to the public in order to keep them effective"
"Seems unfair, everyone should know our methods. Publish the details of how you did it"
"Seems after letting everyone know how we catch terrorists, they've found a way to circumnavigate our methods"
Although contentious, there are situations which I think secrecy in courts can often be justified in the interest of national safety. I wouldn't say there's never a reason to contemplate secret trials. There is a lot of anger from newspapers as again, it prevents them an opportunity to report juicy details - but I do acknowledge that there's a much wider view that it undermines the legal process.