THE UK government is trying to create a new form of secret trial that would introduce 'fundamental unfairness' into the civil law, the court of appeal heard on Monday.

If successful, the government would be able to defend a case brought by seven men who say they suffered extraordinary rendition and torture without revealing the arguments or evidence against them.

Instead, the claim would be conducted by 'special advocates' — specially vetted lawyers appointed by the court who cannot discuss the case with their clients.

The men, who include the high-profile former Guantanamo Bay detainees Binyam Mohamed and Moazzam Begg, are claiming damages for their detention and mistreatment, accusing British security services of complicity.

In a three-day hearing that began on Monday, lawyers representing the claimants said the use of special advocates was fundamentally at odds with English legal traditions and principles. “This is very straightforward,” said Dinah Rose, representing five of the men including Mohamed. “This has never been allowed in the history of the common law.”

Civil trials have never been conducted in secret, experts say, although some aspects of cases have been kept private using a procedure known as public interest immunity.

The current hearing is to decide whether large parts of the security services' and government's defence can be kept secret from the former detainees, their lawyers and the public. The case comes after repeated criticisms by the courts of the use of secrecy and special advocates by the government.

“The special advocate procedure has served as a figleaf for fundamental unfairness,” Rose said. “The process looks like a normal trial and sounds like a normal trial but it is not a trial at all. It is something completely different.”

Lawyers representing the men say that introducing secrecy in the civil courts would also be impractical.

— The Guardian, London