Special rules for court cases concerned with whether organisations should be banned on national security grounds might be needed once new anti-subversion laws are in place, the solicitor-general has revealed. But the task of establishing the rules - which might allow courts to sit behind closed doors when dealing with sensitive or secret material - would be given to the Judiciary, Robert Allcock added. 'There will probably be a rule-making power so that there could be special procedures if necessary. With national security issues there may be a need for special procedures,' said Mr Allcock. 'They would deal with whether [the hearing] is open to the public or not, and things like that. It would be for the Judiciary, which is independent, to organise.' New arrangements for the banning of organisations on national security grounds form one of the most controversial parts of the government's proposals for legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law. The consultation paper released in September proposed that special tribunals be set up to consider appeals against a ban, dealing with the facts of the case. The role of the courts was to have been restricted to consideration of points of law. But the tribunal idea was scrapped in a range of concessions that were announced by the government on Tuesday, and the courts will now consider appeals dealing with both the facts and the law. Mr Allcock said the government had considered the setting up of tribunals to be appropriate, but had listened to concerns raised by lawyers that these bodies might not be as independent as the courts. 'However fair the tribunal was, you could still be open to the accusation that the chairman was appointed by the chief executive and that it [therefore] could not amount to a fair avenue of appeal,' he added. 'This was the last thing we wanted. We want a genuine appeal mechanism which oversees the process and ensures the protection of human rights.' The government is proposing that organisations may be banned on national security grounds if they commit, or have as their objective, Article 23 crimes such as treason, subversion, sedition or secession. More controversial is the intention to allow the proscription of Hong Kong groups that are subordinate to ones banned on the mainland on national security grounds.