Lords reject torture evidence use
Discussion
Secret evidence that might have been obtained by torture cannot be used against terror suspects in UK courts, the law lords have ruled.
Now torture is reprehensible but, if evidence from it is provided to the UK government that can be used to identify dangerous terrorists and deport them should it be used?
BBC article
Lords reject torture evidence use
An anti-torture protester in London earlier this year
Secret evidence that might have been obtained by torture cannot be used against terror suspects in UK courts, the law lords have ruled.
The decision means the cases of eight detainees facing deportation are expected to be reconsidered by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
It is a victory for eight men who had been held without charge.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke accepted the ruling but said it would have "no bearing" on efforts to combat terror.
He said the government did not use evidence it knew or suspected had been obtained by torture but the ruling had clarified the appropriate legal test of what was admissable.
Human rights
Thursday's ruling centres on how far the government must go to show improper methods if obtaining information from suspects have not been used.
An independent judiciary has once again been more effective in defending individual rights than this government
Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrats
The Court of Appeal ruled last year that such evidence could be used if UK authorities had no involvement.
But eight of the 10 foreign terror suspects who were being held without charge, backed by human rights groups, challenged that ruling.
They argued evidence obtained in US detention camps should be excluded from court hearings.
It is thought some of the eight men are being held in Belmarsh or other high security prisons, pending deportation, some released on bail and others restricted by the government's new control orders. The Home Office will not confirm precise figures.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) must now investigate whether evidence against the suspects facing deportation was obtained by torture.
'Hypothetical'
The home secretary said the government had not been planning to rely on evidence it knew or suspected had been obtained under torture.
HAVE YOUR SAY
We are at war with terror but that is no reason to become what we are fighting
Matthew Iles, Ashford, UK
Send us your comments
He said he did not expect the ruling to affect the outcome of the men's appeals.
Mr Clarke said: "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."
Quoting one of the law lords' judgements, Mr Clarke said it was "one thing to condemn torture as we all do" but another to "find a solution to the question that this case raises which occupies the moral high ground but at the same time serves the public interest and is practicable".
'Abhorrence'
The law lords' unanimous finding that the men's appeal should be allowed began with a forthright condemnation of torture by Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice, who headed the panel of seven law lords.
He said the English law had regarded "torture and its fruits" with abhorrence for over 500 years.
"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."
Another member of the panel, Lord Carswell said: "The duty not to countenance the use of torture by admission of evidence in judicial proceedings must be regarded as paramount and to allow its admission would shock the conscience, abuse or degrade the proceedings and involve the state in moral defilement."
'Momentous'
Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said the judgement was "a completely correct restatement of a law that has existed for hundreds of years".
Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said it was a "landmark judgement", which would have implications for other cases coming before the courts.
He said it showed "an independent judiciary has once again been more effective in defending individual rights than this government".
Amnesty International said the "momentous" ruling overturned the "tacit belief that torture can be condoned under certain circumstances".
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights pressure group Liberty, said: "This is an important message about what distinguishes us from dictators and terrorists.
"We will not legitimise evidence obtained by torture by using it in our justice system."
I can't imagine that the security services wouldn't make use of imformation obtained by torture to at least check out people who may be planning an attack, indeed I think it would be remiss of them if they didn't.
However, the idea that we could have evidence obtained by torture in our courts is frankly disgusting - and the fact the government initially wanted this makes my skin crawl.
However, the idea that we could have evidence obtained by torture in our courts is frankly disgusting - and the fact the government initially wanted this makes my skin crawl.
wolves_wanderer said:
However, the idea that we could have evidence obtained by torture in our courts is frankly disgusting - and the fact the government initially wanted this makes my skin crawl.
"The decision means the cases of eight detainees facing deportation are expected to be reconsidered by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. "
They were't planning to send them to jail but deport them. If you know someone is a dangerous fanantic from evidence obtained (by a 3rd party)from torture why not deport them?
How can you believe evidence obtained by torture?
If you were being tortured (or your family was being threatened), which would you be more likely to do - tell the truth or tell the torturers what you think they want to hear?
The fact that this has even needed to be debated is a sickening reflection on the way this government seems to have lost all sense of morals.
Well done, the Lords. No wonder Tony wants them all turned into "yes" men.
If you were being tortured (or your family was being threatened), which would you be more likely to do - tell the truth or tell the torturers what you think they want to hear?
The fact that this has even needed to be debated is a sickening reflection on the way this government seems to have lost all sense of morals.
Well done, the Lords. No wonder Tony wants them all turned into "yes" men.
Jaglover said:How do you know the evidence is correct? I was listening to radio 5 at lunch time and the ex ambassador to Uzbekistan was on. He basically said that most of the "evidence" obtained by torture implicated people who just happened to have links to the Uzbek political opposition. There is no reason to allow the use of torture "evidence" in court as people will say anything to stop the torture, however the security services will use it to investigate people, after which a proper court case should be built.
However, the idea that we could have evidence obtained by torture in our courts is frankly disgusting - and the fact the government initially wanted this makes my skin crawl.
"The decision means the cases of eight detainees facing deportation are expected to be reconsidered by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. "
They were't planning to send them to jail but deport them. If you know someone is a dangerous fanantic from evidence obtained (by a 3rd party)from torture why not deport them?
scorp said:
They were't planning to send them to jail but deport them. If you know someone is a dangerous fanantic from evidence obtained (by a 3rd party)from torture why not deport them?
Because people who are tortured tend to say anything their torturers want to hear.
It depends on the nature of the evidence obtained I suppose, if it were purely a verbal allegation I would agree with you.
But what if it was the information on bank accounts, weapons and so forth which was obtained by such a means, i.e. there is physical evidence to back up the confession.
Jaglover said:
But what if it was the information on bank accounts, weapons and so forth which was obtained by such a means, i.e. there is physical evidence to back up the confession.
It creates an interesting problem then, i could see some instances were torture might be ethically acceptable. I remember reading a story (im sure ive mentioned this on here before!) - about a child killer who was caught in germany, he had abducted a little girl and hid her in a well or something, basically her life was in danger. When questioned the child killer refused to disclose the location of the girl (out of spite, presumably). The cops then beat him until he told them were she was. In that situation torture is palatable, in my book.
I don't think i could trust this government with these laws though.
Jaglover said:Then that evidence should suffice to obtain your conviction or deportation order. It stands separate from the agonised droolings that provided the lead.
But what if it was the information on bank accounts, weapons and so forth which was obtained by such a means, i.e. there is physical evidence to back up the confession.
scorp said:
I don't think i could trust this government with these laws though.
Indeed not, and I do not think torture should be used in this country.
However these people are not being tried for some crime, the government wishes to deport them on the grounds that they are danger to this country.
In my view claiming asylum here is not a right but a privilege and if the government has any justifiable suspicion that this priviledge is being abused and that they are a danger, then it should be free to deport them.
Use whatever other investigative and policing techniques are avilable - but not torture.
Sorry, you cannot allow this to become part of "normal" interogative techniques. Of course there will be occasions when the police or whoever will feel frustrated and feel like they are not making progress - but tough. On occasions when British police have used inappropriate techniques to extract "evidence" from suspects they "knew" to be guilty, terrible miscarriages of justice were perpetrated.
Sorry, you cannot allow this to become part of "normal" interogative techniques. Of course there will be occasions when the police or whoever will feel frustrated and feel like they are not making progress - but tough. On occasions when British police have used inappropriate techniques to extract "evidence" from suspects they "knew" to be guilty, terrible miscarriages of justice were perpetrated.
wolves_wanderer said:
However, the idea that we could have evidence obtained by torture in our courts is frankly disgusting - and the fact the government initially wanted this makes my skin crawl.
"The decision means the cases of eight detainees facing deportation are expected to be reconsidered by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. "
They were't planning to send them to jail but deport them. If you know someone is a dangerous fanantic from evidence obtained (by a 3rd party)from torture why not deport them?
I have spent considerable time in Uzbekistan. Wonderful people; I made good friends there. However, the leadership is left over Politburo thugs. The political opposition there regulary gets arrested or mysteriously vanishes around election time....coincidence I suppose.
>> Edited by jimbeaux on Thursday 8th December 18:46
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff