I would like it to be clearly understood that I am making this remark based on the fact that the league is against secret evidence. As soon as a government decides to deprive an individual of his or her liberty, it must tell this individual why and what it is accusing him or her of, what kind of evidence it has. In terms of justice, we do not see how it would be possible to get away from this position. Secret evidence in itself is problematic and is not compatible with the exercise of justice.
That said, it must be noted that the current amendments do not give the special advocate any right to communicate with the person named, to discuss matters with him or her or to provide information. I think that Murray described the situation to you very well. As lawyers, you and I know full well that this contact with the individual whose freedom has been jeopardized is absolutely fundamental, essential so that we're able to test the evidence presented against him or her.