By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

matters relating to the dispassion and armament of the armed forces are left tothe unfettered control of the Crown he made three comments First he put theZamora dictum into its true context. Secondly he observed that when a court isfaced with the exercise oa a discretionary power inquiry is not altogetherexcluded the court will intervene to correct excess or abuse. His third and as hesaid his most significant comment was as to the nature and effect of the principleWhere it opeares it limits the issue which the court has to determine it does notexclude any evidence or argument relevant to the issue (p. 810)As I read the speeches in Chandler’s case the House accepted that the statute4required the prosecution to establish by evidence that the conspiracy was toenter a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of thestate As parliament had left the existence of a prejudicial purpose to the decisionof a jury it was not the Crown’s opinion as to the existence of prejudice to thesafety or interests of the state but the jury’s which mattered hence as LordDevlin. At p. 811.remarked the Crown’s opinion on that was inadmissible but theCrown’s evidence as to its interests was an entirely different matter. Here likeLord Parker in the Zamora. Lord Devin was accepting that the Crown or itsresponsible servants are the best judges of what national security requireswithout excluding the judicial unction of determining whether the interest ofnational security has been shown to be involved in the case.Finally, I would refer to Secretary of State for Defence v. Guardian NewspapersLtd. (1985) A.C. 339 a case arising under section 10 of the Act of 1981. As inChandler’s case the interest of national security had to be considered inproceedings where it arose as a question of fact to be established to thesatisfaction of a court Though the House was divided as to the effect of theevidence all their Lordships held that evidence was necessary so that the courtcould be judicially satisfied that the interest of national security requireddisclosure of the newspaper’s source of informationMy Lords I conclude therefore that where a question as to the interest of nationalsecurity arises in judicial preceding the court has to act on evidence. In somecases a judge or jury is required by law to be satisfied that the interest is proved339