|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
9-12-2005 Scotsman Torture ruling is shrugged off By Chief News Correspondent Gethin Chamberlain A DECISION by Britain's highest court that evidence obtained by torture is not admissible prompted a fresh row last night between Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, and human rights campaigners. The House of Lords overturned a Court of Appeal ruling that if evidence was obtained under torture by agents of another country, with no involvement by the UK, it was usable by Britain's Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), and there was no obligation by the government to inquire as to its origins. Instead, the Law Lords allowed the appeals of eight detainees held on suspicion of involvement in terrorism and ruled that orders made by the SIAC for their continued detention should be set aside. They unanimously agreed all the cases should be sent back to the SIAC for reconsideration. That appeared to open the door to the detainees' lawyers to make fresh representations for their release. But Mr Clarke was quick to issue a statement asserting that the ruling would be unlikely to affect any of the men being held without trial. "The majority of their lordships have ruled that evidence should be admitted to SIAC hearings unless those acting for terrorism suspects can establish - on the balance of probabilities - that the evidence was obtained by torture," he said. "We accept this judgment, which will have no bearing on the government's efforts to combat terrorism. We have always made clear that we do not intend to rely on or present evidence in SIAC which we know or believe to have been obtained by torture. So, this issue is hypothetical. The real issue is the test applied. We do not expect this test to affect the outcome of these individual appeals." The men's lawyers vehemently disagreed. Gareth Peirce, who represents eight of the original ten who challenged the appeal court ruling, said: "Let me correct him. The legal advice he is getting is completely contrary to what the House of Lords is saying. This strengthens our view that the government will, even now, go to any lengths to avoid the implications of the judgment." Mrs Peirce said the head of MI5 had admitted its policy was not to ask about the circumstances surrounding how evidence had been obtained and this had been condemned by the Law Lords. She said they had ruled in the "clearest terms" that SIAC could not use evidence which was tainted by torture. "It is not for the appellants to prove anything. It is for the government to prove it," she said. The case was brought by ten foreign nationals, most of whom were detained in 2001 and who were previously certified under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 as suspected international terrorists and subject to indefinite detention without trial. The majority are Algerian; two have since left the UK. They had challenged a ruling by the SIAC that the government had "sound material" to support a belief that they were a threat to national security. Their lawyers argued that evidence allegedly obtained by torture in US camps should have been excluded. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, a former Lord Chief Justice who headed the panel of seven Law Lords, said English law had regarded "torture and its fruits" with abhorrence for more than 500 years. He said: "I am startled, even a little dismayed, at the suggestion (and the acceptance by the Court of Appeal majority) that this deeply-rooted tradition and an international obligation solemnly and explicitly undertaken can be overridden by a statute and a procedural rule which make no mention of torture at all." He was referring to a SIAC rule that allows it to accept evidence which would be inadmissible in a court of law. Human Rights Watch, one of 13 groups involved in the case, said it was an important milestone in a global battle. Liberty, which was also involved, said: "This is an incredibly important day, with the Law Lords sending a signal across the democratic world that there is to be no compromise on torture." Amnesty International said: "It is deplorable that the UK government had to be taken to court over this. Over the last two and a half years, the authorities have shamefully sought to defend the indefensible." It said some governments had deliberately adopted a very narrow definition of torture. "They may try to open a gap between what everybody is against, such as electric shocks and severe beatings, and so-called acceptable coercive interrogation techniques," said a spokesman. "We think this is a very dangerous move and should be resisted." Amnesty cited three torture methods it said had been used, including the beating of feet with sticks or metal bars, partial drowning and the use of a gas mask to partially suffocate a victim. It also listed coercive techniques, including sleep and sensory deprivation, constant loud music, being forced to stand for long periods and exposure to extremes of temperature.
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
