Majority verdicts and confidentiality in Special Criminal Court upheld as constitutional

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by an individual challenging the constitutionality of a provision allowing majority verdicts (rather than requiring unanimous decisions) in the Special Criminal Court. The appellant, convicted of serious offences and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, argued that being convicted by a two-judge majority out of three and the lack of disclosure about unanimity of the verdict breached his constitutional rights to due process and equality, and that these provisions were less fair than jury trials. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, finding that there was no constitutional requirement for parity between jury and non-jury trials, that special courts are expressly permitted to differ under the Constitution, and that the appeal's arguments failed to establish any breach of fairness, equality, or transparency principles. The court also held that recommendations for reform did not impact the legality of the law and awarded costs to the respondents.