Non-disclosure of information in the prosecution of preventive detention regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preventive detention has been adopted as a measure of counter-terrorism law in many jurisdictions. It has been authorised under the Security Certificate regime in Canada and the Control Order regime in United Kingdoms. Since their adoption, the two regimes have become objects of much debate. The reason is that they both legalised the use of secret evidence and secret hearings in their prosecution. The issue arose whether the non-disclosure of such information in a judicial review to decide the reasonableness of a control order/a security certificate deprives terrorist suspects from a fair hearing.\nThis paper explores that question by analysing two landmark cases in the United Kingdom and Canada: AF (No 3) and Charkaoui I. The paper’s thesis is that the findings of the courts in these two cases are reasonable. However, the alternative to full disclosure as adopted by both the United Kingdom and Canada – the Special Advocate model – is currently too limited. This paper subsequently offers solution for this: the judges should have a more active role in investigating the relevant facts of the cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".