[News] Evidence gained by torture allowed by British judges
News at freedomarchives.org
News at freedomarchives.org
Thu Aug 12 10:54:29 EDT 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=550499
Evidence gained by torture allowed by British judges
From Lord Justice Laws' judgement: 'I am quite unable to see that any ...
principle prohibits the Secretary of State from relying ... on evidence ...
which has or may have been obtained by torture by agencies of other states
over which he has no powers of direction'
By Robert Verkaik Legal Affairs Correspondent
12 August 2004
The use of torture to obtain evidence against suspected terrorists was
endorsed yesterday by the Court of Appeal in a ruling that has brought
Britain into conflict with international human rights campaigners.
Two of the country's senior judges granted the Home Secretary the right to
hold terror suspects on the basis of intelligence from tortured prisoners
at Guantanamo Bay and other US detention camps.
Human rights groups and experts on international law said Britain had, in
effect, been given the green light to trawl for evidence from torture
victims across the world.
The controversial guidance emerged in the court's decision to reject
appeals from 10 foreign nationals held for more than two years without
charge or trial in British prisons under emergency terror laws introduced
by David Blunkett after the 11 September attacks.
None of the men is accused of terrorist acts, only that they belong to
banned terrorist organisations. Two of the 10 have voluntarily left Britain
and are bringing their appeals from abroad. But Mr Blunkett, writing in
today's Independent, says yesterday's judgment on the fate of the detainees
is a clear vindication of his policy on terrorism. "As Home Secretary. I
must balance legal theory with the practical job of protecting people," he
says.
In yesterday's ruling, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Pill upheld the
decision of the special immigration appeals commission to authorise the
detention of the suspects, although it was alleged the only evidence
against them came from men tortured by American security officers at
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba or Bagram air base in Afghanistan. In a 190-page
judgment, Lord Justice Laws said he was "quite unable" to see why the Home
Secretary could not rely on evidence "coming into his hands which has or
may have been obtained through torture by agencies of other States over
which he has no power of direction".
The judge added: "If he has neither procured the torture nor connived at
it, he has not offended the constitutional principle which I have sought to
outline." He said he could not believe "that the law should sensibly impose
on the Secretary of State a duty of solemn inquiry as to the interrogation
methods used by agencies of other sovereign states".
But in the two-to-one judgment, the dissenting judge, Lord Justice
Neuberger, warned that by "adopting the fruits of torture" Britain would be
weakening its case against terrorists.
All three judges said there was no evidence to show that any intelligence
had been gathered from victims of torture, only that this had been alleged
by the men's lawyers.
The men's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, described as "terrifying" the
suggestion in the judgment that evidence obtained through torture could be
admissible. "It shows that we have completely lost our way in this country
legally and morally," she said. "We have international treaty obligations
which prevent the use of evidence obtained by torture in any proceedings."
Shami Chakrabati, director of the human rights group Liberty, said the
effect of the judgment would encourage the police and security services to
adopt a policy of "hear no evil, see no evil".
She said: "As long as the Home Secretary does not inquire into how the
information was obtained he can use it in any way he wishes. This would
surely make Britain complicit in international acts of torture." Kate
Allen, director of Amnesty International in the UK said she was appalled.
"The rule of law and human rights have become casualties of the measures
taken in the aftermath of 9/11. This judgment is an aberration, morally and
legally."
Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said the
ruling meant the Government was being allowed to "connive in torture". He
added: "Under international law there is an absolute prohibition on
torture. This is not just because it is an inhumane act but because of the
rationale that the fruits of torture are very likely to be wholly
unreliable and so it is irrational to rely on information obtained by torture."
Lord Justice Neuberger said that "democratic societies, faced with
terrorist threats, should not readily accept that the threat justifies the
use of torture, or that the end justifies the means. It can be said that,
by using torture, or even by adopting the fruits of torture, a democratic
state is weakening its case against terrorists, by adopting their methods,
thereby losing the moral high ground an open democratic society enjoys."
The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040812/7fb80062/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list