The Supreme Court, which opens its doors next month, is supposed to herald a new era in British justice — contemporary surroundings, television cameras and transparent justice.

All the cases scheduled for the the court’s first month of hearings, however, involve people whose identities are cloaked in official secrecy, including an alleged terrorist and a former spy, The Times has learnt.

The terrorist suspect, who will be referred to in court as G, has been designated as an al-Qaeda supporter by the United Nations and Interpol. The man, in his 20s, an alleged associate of some of the convicted airline bomb plotters, is seeking the lifting of a government order freezing his assets.

A former MI5 officer will be the next claimant to appear before the new court, identified simply as A. His case, which concerns an attempt to publish his memoirs, is listed as A v B, with B believed to refer to the security services.

The series of anonymity orders appears to fly in the face of promises of transparency from the judiciary.

G, from East London, is one of five men challenging terrorist financial orders, which freeze their accounts and require them to apply to the Treasury for living expenses.

The others can be identified only as A, K, M and Q. They won their claim in the High Court last year, but the Appeal Court overturned that ruling.

Their case has been selected to be the first before the new court because of its legal significance. It touches on how UN resolutions are translated into British law and will be heard by a bench of seven of the country’s most senior judges.

G was seen during surveillance in the airline plot investigation meeting Abdulla Ahmed Ali and Assad Sarwar, who were sentenced to life imprisonment last week. He was also filmed for a TV documentary in East London greeting Umar Islam, who was sentenced to a minimum of 22 years for conspiracy to murder.

The man denies any involvement in terrorism but is accused in security files, seen by The Times, as having arranged travel to Pakistan for individuals seeking jihad training. He is also alleged to have met and stayed with senior al-Qaeda figures.

A v B involves an MI5 officer with a “critical role in the history of antiterror intelligence operations”. He issued High Court proceedings claiming that MI5’s refusal to allow the publication of his autobiography was unlawful and a breach of his right to freedom of expression.

He is challenging a ruling that the matter could only be dealt with by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which meets behind closed doors. His legal team, led by Gavin Millar, QC, will argue that it is “particularly ironic” that he has been told to argue his case for freedom of expression before a “highly secretive tribunal”.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers