[Media-watch] !!British Courts allow evidence obtained by TORTURE

Fri Aug 13 10:23:51 BST 2004

Dear Media Watch Friends,

yesterdays judgement by Lord Justice Pill, Lord
Justice Law and Judge Neuberger is a shameful and
dreadful development:

It allows evidence in British courts that has been
obtained by torture in other countries (this includes
US detention camps, Guantanamo).

Torture is not permissible under any circumstances in
International Law.
There is NO opt out clause for torture.

I hope all of you will feel so strongly about it that
you'll take the time write to your Member of
Parliament about this.

 I enclose some materials for further reading:
full text of article from the Guardian,
full text of amnesty international's reaction;

If you want to know what torture does to people visit
ai's website.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-index-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-index-eng

Also have a look at liberty (human rights
organisation) website for clear + good legal
explanations
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml

For the reaction of human Rights watch check:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/08/11/uk9229.htm
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/08/11/uk9229.htm

It follows an article from  the Guardian from 12.08.04
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1281297,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1281297,00.html

Tortured logic 
Leader
Thursday August 12, 2004
The Guardian 

The ramifications of yesterday's ruling in the appeal
court that evidence obtained by torture should be
admissible in the UK are awesome. We have warned
before of the way in which Britain's "Guantánamo Bay"
law erodes the most fundamental principles of the
nation's criminal justice system. Under the 2001
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, rushed through
parliament following the al-Qaida attack on the US,
foreign suspects can be detained indefinitely without
charge or trial. Yesterday's verdict goes much
further, by eroding fundamental principles of
international law. 

The case before the court was an appeal by 10 foreign
nationals detained under the act more than two years
ago. Their lawyers were attempting to overturn the
decision by the commission set up to hear appeals,
which upheld the government's decision to detain them.
Lawyers for the detainees argued they should never
have been held because some of the evidence on which
the Home Secretary had acted had been obtained by the
US holding other detainees under conditions of
torture. The court rejected this claim, with Lord
Justice Laws declaring: "It is plain to my
satisfaction that there was no evidence in any of the
appeals that any material relied on by the secretary
of state had in fact been obtained by torture." 

But the court did not stop there. It went on to
examine if it would be permissible in principle for
the commission to look at evidence extracted by
torture. Strip away the fine gradations of
interpretation that are woven into most judgments from
the second highest court in the land, and what is left
is a 2-1 majority decision that evidence produced by
torture would be admissible in such cases as long as
Britain had not "procured or connived" at the torture.

Gareth Peirce, solicitor for the detainees, was right
to describe this decision as "terrifying". She was not
exaggerating when she declared that it showed "we have
completely lost our way in this country legally and
morally". This is a decision that totally ignores a
succession of international treaty obligations, one of
which, the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK
was instrumental in drafting. Do not be confused by
Britain's decision to opt out of this convention in
order to implement the 2001 act. In terms of torture,
there is no opt-out. All that opting out allowed was
the decision to detain foreign terrorist suspects
without charge or trial. 

The judgment breaches both the UN convention against
torture and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. True, there is no international
court to which the UK can be taken with the new
judge-made British law. True, even if there was, the
UK could argue that, although we have signed the UN
convention, we have not incorporated it. But we have
incorporated the European convention. What is shocking
is to see two of the highest judges in the land ready
to ignore these international conventions.
International law depends on the mutual respect of
member states as a means of enforcement. None of the
other 44 states that have incorporated the European
convention on human rights has introduced detention
without charge or trial, let alone allowed evidence
generated by torture. Similarly, none of the 150
states of the UN convention has publicly taken such a
position. 

The judgment must not be allowed to stand. This can be
achieved in at least three ways. One is to appeal
against it to the House of Lords on the grounds set
out by Lord Justice Neuberger, the dissenting appeal
court judge. Another is for parliament to refuse to
extend this section of the act when it comes up for
renewal in 2006. But there is a third way: ministers
could simply reverse out of their human rights cul de
sac by declaring that we will not be a legal pariah. 
(End of text)

News release of Amnesty international 11/08/04
News Release Issued by the International Secretariat
of Amnesty International

AI Index: EUR 45/019/2004        11 August 2004

UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture

Amnesty International is appalled by todayís ruling of
the Court of Appeal that "evidence" obtained by
torture is admissible in the UK.

"The rule of law and human rights have become
casualties of the measures taken in the aftermath of
9/11. This judgement is an aberration, morally and
legally," Amnesty International said today.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of 10
foreign nationals interned without charge or trial
under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
(ATCSA).

In a two-to-one ruling, the second highest court in
England and Wales clarified that "evidence" obtained
by torture would not be deemed admissible when
directly procured by UK agents or in whose procurement
UK agents have connived.

"This caveat does nothing to prevent torture at the
hands of agents of other states; in fact, it
effectively encourages and fosters it. It is a
fundamental duty of all courts to act as a bulwark
against human rights violations. Today, the Court of
Appeal has shamefully abdicated this most important
duty," Amnesty International said.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds on which the
appellants had appealed against the October 2003
judgments of the Special Immigration Appeals
Commission (SIAC), including SIACís ruling that
torture "evidence" is admissible.

"If there is sufficient evidence to warrant holding
these individuals, they should be charged with a
recognizably criminal offence, and tried in
proceedings which fully meet international fair trial
standards. Otherwise they should released", Amnesty
International said.

Background

Under the ATCSA, the Secretary of State can certify
non-deportable foreign nationals as "suspected
international terrorists", and detain them
indefinitely, without charge or trial. Therefore,
Amnesty International believes that the ATCSA is
discriminatory.

In December 2003, the Committee of Privy Counsellors,
who had been charged with reviewing the ATCSA,
recommended the urgent repeal of ATCSA powers allowing
non-UK nationals to be detained potentially
indefinitely. Early this month, the UK Parliament
Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with this
recommendation.

As of today, 12 people remain interned under the ATCSA
in the UK. They have been held in high-security
facilities under severely restricted regimes. Most of
the internees have been in detention for more than two
years. One further person, known only as "G" for legal
reasons has been granted bail under conditions
amounting to house arrest. So far, only one person,
known for legal reasons only as "M", has won an appeal
against certification as a suspected international
terrorist.

--- Further documentation ---

Amnesty International's report:
UK: Justice Perverted under the Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Act 2001-
http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacxmBaa86h4bew2yLb/

Related Amnesty International press releases:

UK: Repeal emergency powers -
http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacxmBaa86h5bew2yLb/

UK: Home Secretary's reported proposals -- an
aberration of justice, the rule of law and human right
-
http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacxmBaa86h6bew2yLb/

UK: Scrap internment -
http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacxmBaa86h7bew2yLb/

UK: Court of Appeal puts an end to M's persecution -
http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacxmBaa86h8bew2yLb/

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com