Talk:R v Incedal

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from R v Incedal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in its recent ruling in R v Incedal and Rarmoul-Bouhadjar the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held it "difficult to conceive of a situation" justifying holding a criminal trial in full secrecy?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/R v AB and CD.

Wikipedia

12 June 2014[edit]

"Arrests and Charges" section misleads, as the sequential order of events is misrepresented. A complete rewrite of this section is imperative. We didn't know the identities of the defendants on 4 June, as the wiki would seem to indicated. 66.185.200.1 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. Can you explain a bit more? How exactly does the article give the impression that we knew the identities of the defendants on 4 June? Formerip (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to an article published on 4 June. 66.185.200.1 (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

proper titles needed[edit]

Chris Grayling is not "justice secretary". The "reaction" section should be rewritten in chronological order. 66.185.200.1 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is in chronological order, AFAICT. You were mistaken in your edit which had Chris Grayling speaking on 12 June. I've copyedited your additions to the "Reaction" section, making one alteration at once so that the reasons are given in the edit summaries. Please read these before reverting. Formerip (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the part about Chris Grayling being the first Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor to not be a lawyer. The column by Jenny McCartney makes the claim that he is the first Lord Chancellor not to be a lawyer, but that'f factually wrong. Lord Chancellors have usually been lawyers, but not always. According to Lord Chancellor, they were usually bishops up until the time of Henry VIII, and there are a few examples after that. Formerip (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you need to be more careful about your references. the reference you gave for Grayling quote was 12 june; in fact it was 5 june, fixed. 66.185.200.1 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

style of cause[edit]

You ought to be very careful of renaming the case "R v Ab and CD" to "R v Incedal...". The case is named in the transcript (you?) provided "Guardian v AB CD", and is likely to be filed under "R v AB and CD" for good, even though its defendants are now known. The identity of the defendants is less important than the continuity of reference. You probably need to change the first sentence and the wiki title back to "R v AB CD" for reference sake. 66.185.200.1 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" first criminal trial in British legal history to be held entirely in secret"[edit]

Oh, really? What about the Star Chamber? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say it would have been the first. I'm not an expert on the Star Chamber. I think it convened in private, but its rulings were not secret. It mostly heard civil cases and, obviously, it would usually make no sense to have completely secret civil proceedings, because the a ruling against an anonymous person in favour of an anonymous person with an unspecified remedy would be difficult to enforce. Formerip (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]