Of the eight women, all are bringing common law claims, but only three are able to bring human rights claims in the UK courts. The following information outlines a battle involving these three. (For further information on the difference between the two different kinds of law, see here.)
In late 2012 the legal team acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Police and ACPO mounted a bid to have the human rights claims of the three women heard in a secret tribunal (the “IPT”), where the claimants would have no access to the evidence and no right to attend the trial, among other controversial limitations. The police argued that the women’s common law claims should likewise be heard in the IPT. See here for the claimants’ response to the first hearing of this application.
In January 2013 Judge Tugenhat ruled that the common law claims of these three women could be heard in open court rather than the IPT – but found in favour of secrecy for their human rights claims. (An explanation of the ruling by Harriet Wistrich, the solicitor for the case, can be found here. ) However, the three women decided to appeal the secrecy decision over their human rights claims. One result of this is that their common law claims won’t be brought until this matter is resolved.
So in October 2013 an appeal by the womens’ legal team against the IPT ruling was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the decision to hear those parts of the case in secret was upheld. See here for the claimants’ response, and see here for an overview of the case as it stood at that point.
The women are further appealing the IPT ruling. The battle continues.
