Supreme court bans secret evidence used to hide torture claims

Intelligence services had exploited ‘closed material procedures’ to conceal evidence relating to Guantánamo detainees The supreme court has outlawed intelligence services’ use of secret evidence in court to conceal allegations that detainees were tortured. The decision will be seen as a significant victory for open justice, but the panel of nine judges pointed out that parliament could change the law to permit such “closed material procedures” in future. The appeal was brought by lawyers for MI5 seeking to overturn an earlier appeal court ruling that prevented the service from suppressing accusations British suspects had been ill-treated at Guantánamo Bay and other foreign holding centres. The case arose originally out of claims by Bisher al-Rawi, Binyam Mohamed, Jamil el-Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes and Martin Mubanga that MI5 and MI6 aided and abetted their unlawful imprisonment and extraordinary rendition. The five – who deny involvement in terrorism – launched actions for compensation for abuse and wrongful imprisonment. The Guardian, on behalf of a number of media organisations, had intervened in the case to argue in favour of open justice. In the judgment, which runs to nearly 120 pages, all of the judges rejected the security service’s main submission that a court has a common law power to order a closed material procedure as an alternative to the more conventional public interest immunity (PII) certificate. Such a power, they argued, would contravene fundamental and long-established principles of open and natural justice. The court was divided on the security service’s secondary submission that a court has a common law power to order a closed material procedure as an add-on to a conventional PII in certain exceptional cases. Giving his judgment, Lord Dyson said: “There are certain features of a common law trial which are fundamental to our system of justice, both criminal and civil. “First, subject to certain established and limited exceptions, trials should conducted and judgments given in public. The importance of the open justice principle emphasised many times. “The open justice principle is not a mere procedural rule. It is a fundamental law principle. “Secondly, trials are conducted on the principle of natural justice.” To allow a “closed procedure” in such an ill-defined way could, he warned, “be the thin end of the wedge”. “This would be a big step for the law to take in view of the fundamental principles at stake. In my view this is a matter for the courts and not for parliament.” In similarly forthright terms, Lord Hope dismissed the intelligence agencies’ request for legal concealment. “There comes a point,” he said, “where the line must be drawn between procedural choices which are regulatory only and procedural choices that affect the very substance of the notion of a fair trial. “Choices that cut across absolutely fundamental principles – such as the right to be confronted by one’s accusers and the right to know the reasons for the outcome – are entirely different. The court has for centuries held the line as the guardian of these fundamental principles.” The Guardian’s submissions on open justice were acknowledged by the court. The government has, however, promised to produce a green paper on the use of intelligence material in closed court hearings. The detainees’ claims for compensation have, in the meantime, been settled. Last November the government agreed to pay out millions of pounds to former Guantánamo Bay inmates. The payments followed years of denial by the government of Britain’s role in the secret transfer of terror suspects to prisons where they risked being tortured – the CIA practice of “extraordinary rendition”. Torture MI5 MI6 Human rights Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk

Posted by on July 13, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.