Secret torture information must be revealed, high court rules
The high court today ruled information concerning torture allegations must be disclosed
The Electoral Reform Society is a voluntary organisation that campaigns for a better democracy, particularly through changes to our electoral system.
|  |
Find more Opinion Formers in this category:
Conservative party chairman Eric Pickles was accused of being a "dictator" after PPC Elizabeth Truss saw off a bid to deselect her last night. |  |
David Cameron's attempts to wind Gordon Brown up appeared to be succeeding. But a burst of unexpected comedy from the prime minister helped restore his benevolent mood. |  |
Thursday, 19, Nov 2009 12:00
By Emmeline Saunders
Secret information relating to the torture of a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner should be disclosed, the British high court has ruled.
Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed claimed the US and Britain were complicit in his alleged torture in Pakistan and Morocco. His lawyers pushed for Britain to release a seven-paragraph summary of US intelligence files regarding Mr Mohamed's detainment.
This document, Mr Mohamed claims, proves Britain's complicity in using torture to gather information.
Today's ruling means four paragraphs in a previous court judgement, which the government says reveal the content of the secret material, can be disclosed.
David Miliband's legal team has argued releasing the sensitive material could compromise Britain's national security, or could make American intelligence services reluctant to share confidential information if they thought it could end up in the public domain.
But high court judges Lord Justice John Thomas and Justice David Lloyd Jones said the paragraphs documenting Mr Mohamed's treatment in custody should not be kept secret.
"Of itself, the treatment to which Mr. Mohamed was subjected could never properly be described in a democracy as 'a secret' or an 'intelligence secret' or 'a summary of classified intelligence," they ruled.
In an unusual move, the judges have lashed out at both the US and UK governments for trying to conceal the information, while encouraging the media to join the legal challenge for full disclosure.
A statement from the Foreign Office said: "We have repeatedly made clear that it is not for the UK to release US intelligence.
"The issues at stake go to the heart of the UK's intelligence sharing relationship with other countries and our efforts to defend UK security."
The government has agreed to pay Mr Mohamed's legal fees up until September 5 2008, which amounts to around £190,000.
Liberal Democrat shadow foreign secretary Edward Davey said: "The government's claim that this evidence would endanger national security looks more flimsy than ever.
"David Miliband must end this shameful episode now and allow the judges to publish the redacted material from their judgement.
"It is especially galling that the Foreign Office has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in an attempt to cover up the truth."
The material concerned cannot be made public immediately because the government is appealing the judgement.
But in a blow to human rights campaigners, the high court yesterday ruled in favour of the government's bid to hold trials in secret.
Mr Justice Silber handed powers of non-disclosure to the government and security services in cases where national security could be compromised.
The ruling was on a legal principle relating to the civil action brought by Mr Mohamed and six fellow former detainees.
Bisher Al Rawi, Jamil Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Moazzam Begg and Martin Mubanga claimed they were subject to extraordinary rendition and torture in which the government was complicit.
Justice Silber said: "It can be lawful and proper for a court to order that a 'closed material procedure' be adopted in a claim for civil damages," rejecting arguments about public interest.
In his judgement he proposed a "special advocacy" model, where a state lawyer could hear the evidence and argue on behalf of the claimant. But the advocate would not be able to tell the claimant the evidence.
Amnesty International UK campaigns director Tim Hancock said: "The court has missed a crucial opportunity to uphold human rights and the rule of law.
"The ruling means that alleged complicity by the UK authorities is likely to remain hidden, possibly forever."
The case will now be taken to the appeals court.