“The case arose from the trial of a man who had been involved in the production of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Afghanistan in 2012, for use against the Coalition forces there, and who had been apprehended when he was on the point of committing a major terrorist atrocity close to Downing Street in 2017. It prompted the court to consider the validity of so-called ‘notification’ hearings, where the prosecution see the judge in the absence of the defence, not for the purpose of asserting public interest immunity but in order to prevent inadvertent mis-management of the case ...”