Can a trial be fair without full disclosure?  

Extracts from the article as follows:

...[ Matthew] Stanbury says: “For the reasons it had given, the Court did not consider there were any ...deficiencies [in the disclosure regimne] in the course of the applicant's trial. Consequently, the fact the Court of Appeal did not examine the undisclosed material did not in itself amount to a violation of art 6(1). Moreover, the Court accepted the government's submission that the applicant did not invite the Court of Appeal to examine the material and thus the Court of Appeal cannot be criticised for failing to consider the undisclosed material of its own motion.”

As for the need for further legal clarification, Stanbury says: “The judgment further legitimises well-established Public Interest Immunity (PII) procedures and it seems unlikely any significant reform in this area will be favourable to defendants. ...He adds the judgment is perhaps a reminder to ensure defence statements are adequate in cases likely to involve PII applications. In addition, practitioners will note it is, he says, “a clear warning to all that should these issues arise at appellate level it is important to be vigilant. Failure to request the material be reviewed could be considered to be a significant omission and jeopardise the prospects of that and any future appeal”.