---

Counter-Terrorism Bill

The Minister describes the process as fully adversarial, but am I right in thinking that a fully adversarial procedure would entitle the suspect to, as subsection (3) of the proposed new clause says, "““a statement of the suspicion which forms the basis for the … original arrest and continued detention, and … the gist of the material on which the suspicion is based””?" I am not talking about the evidence. I quite understand the reasons for excluding the person, for closed hearings and for all the rest of it, but am I right in saying that the procedure is not in any normal sense fully adversarial, as what is mentioned in subsection (3) is not at the moment provided to the person concerned?