Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

It emerged today that in a highly irregular desperate attempt to influence the Court after its draft judgment had been issued to the parties, Counsel for the FCO sent a letter to one of the judges asking for a particular paragraph of his judgment to be deleted.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“It has been clear for over a year that the Foreign Office has been more concerned with saving face than exposing torture. These embarrassing paragraphs reveal nothing of use to terrorists but they do show something of the UK government's complicity with the most shameful part of the War on Terror.”

"The Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover up kidnap and torture. A full public inquiry is now inescapable.”

Lord Neuberger MR said that the Foreign Secretary’s case was “logically insupportable and therefore irrational”.

The Lord Chief Justice said that the Government’s case would “partially conceal the full reasons why the court concluded that those for whom the executive in this country is ultimately responsible were involved in or facilitated wrongdoing in the context of the abhorrent practice of torture”.

He continued: “Such a case engages concepts of democratic accountability and, ultimately, the rule of law itself.”

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

The 7 contested paragraphs in full:

(IV) It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer

(V) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

(VI) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and “disappearing” were played upon.

(VII) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled during his interviews;

(VIII) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

(IX) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

(X) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of BM by the United States authorities. Chronology of the case:

· In May 2008, in order to assist his defence against terrorism charges in the US, Binyam Mohamed made an application to the High Court requesting the UK government to disclose documents provided to it by the US government which gave details of Mr Mohamed's treatment by the US authorities. Mr Mohamed alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in US custody, consisting of genital mutilation, deprivation of sleep and food, being held in stress positions for days at a time, and being forced to listen to loud music and screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch black cell, all while being forced to implicate himself and others in terrorist plots against the US.

· The High Court ruled that Mr Mohamed was entitled to the documents because they concerned wrongdoing by a third party in which the UK government had been involved. Binyam Mohamed's treatment occurred at a time when the UK intelligence services had been involved in questioning him.

· The UK government then issued "public interest immunity" (PII) certificates claiming that disclosure of the documents, and 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment which summarised them, would not be in the public interest. Mr Mohamed challenged this assessment and the matter was considered by the High Court.

· Binyam Mohamed subsequently obtained the documents from the US authorities and charges against him in the US were ultimately dropped. However the UK government continued to resist publication of the 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it ("the control principle"). It was said that the consequence of this was that the Bush administration would reduce its cooperation with the UK intelligence services.

· The High Court accepted the UK government's concerns and decided not to publish the 7 paragraphs.

· Subsequently it materialised that the Foreign Secretary had misrepresented the position to the Court in that the hearing took place shortly after President Obama had been elected and it was not clear that the Obama administration would adopt the same stance as the Bush administration had done. The Court therefore agreed to reopen the matter.

· The High Court then ruled that there was no proper basis for the UK government's assertion that the US government would react in the way that was claimed. It therefore ruled that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· The UK government appealed this decision and as a result the publication of the 7 paragraphs was postponed pending the appeal.

· Meanwhile a US court ruled in an application for habeas corpus by a Guantanamo Bay detainee that Binyam Mohamed had been treated in the way he alleged (i.e. as summarised in the 7 paragraphs).

· Despite this the UK government continued to argue that the 7 paragraphs should not be published.

· The Court of Appeal decided on 10 February 2010 that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· The Court has agreed to take further written submissions on the unusual Foreign Office request to delete one paragraph of its draft judgment.