In a unanimous ruling today, the Law Lords determined that evidence obtained through torture will not be admissible in British courts.

Direct implications of the ruling for the UK government are that it must review all cases in which torture evidence may have been used, refrain from deporting individuals to countries that torture, and investigate UK involvement in alleged extraordinary rendition flights as part of its “positive obligation” to uphold anti-torture laws.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“Our courts have done this country proud today by telling our government and governments around the world that you’re either with us or against us in the war against torture.

Confessions extracted through beatings, electric shocks and pulled fingernails have no place in the UK legal system.”

Liberty Press Office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. A and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department House of Lords Intervention was brought on behalf of ten individuals. Of the 10 appellants now before the House, all save 2 were certified and detained in December 2001. The two exceptions are B and H, certified and detained in February and April 2002 respectively. Each of them appealed against his certification under section 25. Ajouaou and F voluntarily left the United Kingdom, for Morocco and France respectively, in December 2001 and March 2002, and their certificates were revoked following their departure. C’s certificate was revoked on 31 January 2005 and D’s on 20 September 2004. Abu Rideh was transferred to Broadmoor Hospital under sections 48 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in July 2002. Conditions for his release on bail were set by SIAC on 11 March 2005, and on the following day his certificate was revoked and a control order (currently the subject of an application for judicial review) was made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, enacted to replace Part 4 of the 2001 Act. Events followed a similar pattern in the cases of E, A and H, save that none was transferred to Broadmoor and notice of intention to deport (currently the subject of challenge) was given to A and H in August 2005, since which date they have been detained. The control orders made in their cases were discharged. B’s case followed a similar course to A’s, save that he was transferred to Broadmoor under sections 48 and 49 of the 1983 Act in September 2005. In the case of G, bail conditions were set by SIAC in April 2004 and revised on 10 March 2005. His certificate was revoked and a control order made under the 2005 Act on 12 March 2005. He was given notice of intention to deport (which he is challenging) on 11 August 2005, and he has since been detained. His control order was discharged.

2. The Law Lords ruling will require the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to investigate allegations that torture may been used. SIAC must decide whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that torture has or may have been used to obtain the evidence in the individual case that is under scrutiny.

3. Four Law Lords led by Lord Hope determined that if it cannot be proved that the evidence has or may have been obtained by torture, it may be admitted into evidence.

4. Lord Bingham and two Law Lords determined that if there is doubt as to whether or not torture has or may have been used then the evidence cannot be admitted.

5. On 17th October 2005, the House of Lords heard a challenge to the August 2004 Court of Appeal decision which found that evidence obtained under torture is admissible in the UK legal system. On 18th April 2005 the Law Lords gave permission for Liberty, along with the following organizations, to intervene in the above appeal:

The Aire Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), Amnesty International Ltd, the Association for the Prevention of Torture, British Irish Rights Watch, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Doctors for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, INTERIGHTS, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, REDRESS, the World Organization Against Torture

The intervention is based on the principle that the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute. It is a universal legal obligation owed by each state to humanity. There are no justifications or exceptions that may be invoked to justify torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including the threat posed by terrorism. There are also no geographical or jurisdictional limits on the duty of individual states to take preventative measures against torture, wherever it occurs. The English courts can and must enquire into the legality of actions and laws of foreign states, particularly when fundamental human rights are at stake.

Inherent in the prohibition of torture are those measures necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the prohibition. One such measure is the rule requiring the exclusion as evidence in any proceedings of any statement where there is knowledge or belief that it has been obtained as a result of torture. It is clear that this rule is necessary to remove a strong incentive to the commission of torture and to discourage violations of the prohibition.

Further, the principle of the exclusion of evidence obtained under torture is integral to the right to a fair trial. The admission in evidence of statements which are known or believed to have been obtained by torture is unfair, taints the proceedings in question, and is inconsistent with the rule of law.

6. Liberty and human rights group Justice filed an intervention in the Ramzy case in November 2005 which challenges the Government’s intervention in the case which seeks to overrule the decision which maintained that a signatory state “subjects” someone to torture by sending him to another jurisdiction where he faces that risk. The Dutch authorities wish to return Mr. Ramzy to Algeria. The UK Government indicated that it sees the case as an opportunity to challenge the Chahal v UK decision (that a State would violate Article 3 if it returned an individual to a third country where there was a real risk that he would be subjected to Article 3 treatment on his return) and has intervened in the case along with Italy, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia. ENDS///