Philippe Sands quits Lib Dems in protest at support for secret courts The Lib Dems risk losing integrity over the bill, says Philippe Sands QC. The prominent international lawyer Prof Philippe Sands QC has resigned from the Liberal Democrats in protest at the leadership's support for expanding the use of secret courts. His decision, explained in an article for the Guardian, is the third high-profile departure from the party in the last three days. At the weekend, Dinah Rose QC and Jo Shaw, a former parliamentary candidate who led the campaign within the party opposing the justice and security bill, both quit. Sands, 52, is professor of international law at University College London. His book Lawless World highlighted the means by which George Bush and Tony Blair damaged the rule of international law in the run-up to the Iraq conflict. In his article, Sands says: "If adopted, the [justice and security] bill will put British judges in the invidious position of adjudging certain civil claims under conditions in which one party will not be entitled to see the evidence on which the opposing party relies. I accept too that there may be times when the country faces a threat of such gravity and imminence that the exceptional measure of closed material proceedings [secret courts] might be needed. This is not such a time, and the bill is not such a measure. Under conditions prevailing today, this part of the bill is not pragmatic or proportionate. It is wrong in principle, and will not deliver justice. It will be used to shield governmental wrongdoing from public and judicial scrutiny under conditions that are fair and just. The bill threatens greater corrosion of the rights of the individual in the UK, in the name of 'national security'. Sands said he had resigned "with regret" and hoped that the views of the party membership might yet prevail, before the bill passes into law. "If it does not," he added, "the Liberal Democrats will find themselves in a different place, having lost integrity on one issue that has truly distinguished them from other parties, and on which they can rightly claim to have made a real difference." The Lib Dems have twice voted at their conferences to reject proposals in the justice and security bill that expand the use of so-called secret hearings into the main civil courts. In a division on an amendment to impose further safeguards on the use of secret courts in the Commons last week, only seven out of 57 Lib Dem MPs rebelled against the coalition government. The rebels were Simon Hughes, Tim Farron, John Hemming, Sarah Teather, Greg Mulholland, Mike Crockart and Dr Julian Huppert. The last two were both on the committee stage of the bill and therefore among those who examined the legislation most closely. Commenting on Professor Sands's departure, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "Philippe Sands is a leading expert in international law who famously exposed Bush-Blair abuses and joined the Liberal Democrats to fight for his values. When do you start listening to your conscience if not when it is echoed by the best and cleverest members of your own family? Opponents of the bill have accused the government of rushing the legislation through parliament. The next stage of the bill is expected to be considered in the House of Lords on 26 March. Ministers in the coalition government believe they have given sufficient ground to the civil liberties lobby to render the measures palatable to most Lib Dem and Tory MPs. But some of the key safeguards put into the bill when peers defeated the government last November have since been removed during committee stage in the House of Commons. One of the main Lords amendments that disappeared was the so-called 'Wiley balance' - a process of assessment that would have allowed judges to weigh the interests of national security against wider public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. Kenneth Clarke, the minister without portfolio who is piloting the legislation through parliament, claimed its inclusion would have made the bill unworkable. Another safeguard introduced by peers was the notion that secret court hearings, also known as closed material procedures (CMPs), should only be used as a last resort. That amendment was also reversed in the Commons because Clarke argued that it would have the effect of forcing a court to consider a full Public Interest Immunity hearing in every case - a process deemed too cumbersome and time-consuming. When the government was defeated on a number of key amendments last November, rebel peers had majorities of over 100 on several of the votes. Parliament's influential joint committee on human rights, which has called for extra safeguards on secret courts, is due to meet on Tuesday to consider its position in advance of the Lords' vote. Lord Pannick, who tabled a number of those subsequently reversed amendments, told the Guardian: "There's still strong feelings in the Lords. It's a great shame the government hasn't listened. What was striking was that Ken Clarke failed to address the fact that a closed material procedure is fundamentally unfair. The two key changes required are reintroducing the balancing principle for judges and the safeguard that CMPs will only be used as a matter of last resort. "Those amendments are very important," said Pannick, who is a crossbench peer. I hope the opposition will put those before the House and that the [Lords] will reverse the Commons. Jo Shaw, the Liberal Democrat campaigner and former parliamentary candidate who resigned from the party at the weekend over secret courts, said: "This bill is being rushed through. Liberal Democrats in the Lords have to examine their consciences very carefully and think very carefully what the Liberal Democrat party is all about. There's sufficient backing in the Lords to stop this [bill].