"The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) is one of the most controversial - and certainly the most secret court within English law.

It is the venue of appeal for foreign nationals facing detention, deportation or exclusion from the UK on grounds of national security. It has the same powers as the High Court and is presided over by senior judges.

Siac's hearings and rulings are never fully revealed to the public - or to the appellant themselves - because they include testimony from members of the secret security services which the government says it cannot divulge. "

The above is a short quote from the BBC here

Here is a link to another story lie in court scandal

It is a bit hard to grasp - but the point is that the GOVERNMENT appoints barristers to represent the accused. Those lawyers are allowed to see secret government evidence, but not to talk to the accused or their lawyers after they have seen such evidence. So no-one except those barristers - who are usually different on each case - get to know what the government says to the court, which may decide to deport the accused, perhaps to a place where the accused might be tortured.

But in this case it just happened that one barrister was in two cases where there was a potential link between the facts.

In case 1 the government alleged that a particular terrorist group had used the passport of someone only called "MK". MK was not on trail in that case. That allegation was challenged, and shown to be incorrect and was withdrawn.

In case 2, they later said the same thing again. Becuse the same barrister was by chance there, he was able to tell the court (not the accused) of the use of evidence withdrawn in the original case. THe court asked the government to check. Te government said it had checked and its barrister (not the same barrister as the one there to represent the accused) told the court it had withdrawn in this, the second case, all the material that was withdrawn in the first case.

That was not true. It is not clear that it was a deliberate lie to the court, but the suspicion must be there.

For a government to set up its own kangaroo court is bad enough. To mislead even that kangaroo court is surely a sign of a deep moral malaise - deep even by the standards of the present venal bunch.