This also is in response--I'm sorry, I don't know your name--to your prior question about full disclosure.
There was a recent case in the special immigration appeals commission that should be of great interest to all of you, because not only was the person subject to the proceeding before the SIAC not permitted any access--except a very brief summary--to the evidence against him on the national security case, he also did not have access to any of the evidence against him on the risk assessment case. But then the judgment was issued enclosed--the judgment was issued enclosed. There was a very short public judgment and then there was a closed judgment.
There are facts on the ground in Europe that show us that the issues related to secrecy are very concerning on the slippery slope basis, and it was really striking to see a closed judgment from an official court in the U.K. that no one had access to, not even his lawyers. The special advocate had access to it, but his lawyers didn't have access to it and he did not have access to it. I personally find that deeply troubling, and would caution this committee that this is the kind of slippery slope that has developed with respect to these procedures in the United Kingdom.