Binyam Mohamed torture case evidence published after Miliband loses appeal

Published on Wednesday 10 February 2010 13:05

FOREIGN Secretary David Miliband today lost his appeal court bid to prevent senior judges disclosing secret information relating to torture allegations in the case of Binyam Mohamed.

• Mr Mohamed, 31, an Ethiopian granted refugee status in Britain in 1994, was detained in Pakistan in 2002

The former Guantanamo Bay detainee says he was tortured in Pakistan while held by the CIA, with the knowledge of the British.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones want to disclose summaries of information held by the British security services.

Mr Miliband, branded them "irresponsible" in an unprecedented attack on the judiciary, but today three of the country's highest-ranking judges rejected both the minister's accusations and his appeal.

The seven paragraphs from the High Court judgments in full:

• 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.

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

• 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.

• It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews.

• 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.

• We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS (security services) 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.

• 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 by the United States authorities.

Mr Miliband said in a statement: "The Government accepts the decision of the Court of Appeal that, in the light of disclosures in the US court, it should publish the seven paragraphs at issue in the case of Binyam Mohamed.

"At the heart of this case was the principle that if a country shares intelligence with another, that country must agree before its intelligence is released.

"This 'control principle' is essential to the intelligence relationship between Britain and the US.

"The Government fought the case to preserve this principle, and today's judgment upholds it.

"It agreed that the control principle is integral to intelligence sharing. The court has today ordered the publication of the seven paragraphs because in its view their substance had been put into the public domain by a decision of a US court in another case.

"Without that disclosure, it is clear that the Court of Appeal would have overturned the Divisional Court's decision to publish the material.

"The Government has made sustained and successful efforts to ensure Mr Mohamed's legal counsel had full access to the material in question.

"We remain determined to uphold our very strong commitment against mistreatment of any kind."

Today's ruling was a vindication of the stance taken by Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones in what was an unprecedented attack by a Government minister on the senior judiciary.

The Appeal Court agreed that the secret information contained in seven paragraphs, which had to be redacted from High Court judgments already handed down by the judges, should now be reinstated.

One of the key paragraphs stated that the reported treatment of Mr Mohamed "could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Binyam Mohamed by the United States authorities".

Today's ruling was made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, and President of the Queen's Bench Division Sir Anthony May.

At a hearing last December, lawyers for Mr Mohamed and the British and international media argued that disclosure of the secret material was in the public interest.

They accused the Government of seeking to suppress "embarrassing and shaming" evidence of Britain's involvement in torture.

They said sensitive admissions by the CIA to the British security service over the ill-treatment of Mr Mohamed raised the prospect of both UK and US Governments being exposed to "serious criminal liability for an international war crime".

Today the media hailed the Appeal Court ruling in favour of disclosure as "a resounding victory for freedom of speech".

Lawyers acting for the Foreign Secretary had accused the judges of "charging in" to a diplomatically sensitive area – jeopardising UK intelligence-sharing with the US.

Mr Mohamed, 31, an Ethiopian granted refugee status in Britain in 1994, was detained in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of involvement in terrorism and then "rendered" to Morocco and Afghanistan. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2004.

Now back in the UK, he is fighting to prove he was tortured and that the British authorities helped to facilitate his detention and knew about his ill-treatment in Pakistan.

His lawyers say it was necessary for the High Court to determine what the British security service knew about his mistreatment before British agents were sent to interrogate him.

Jonathan Sumption QC, appearing for Mr Miliband, said the current legal proceedings were unnecessary and had "essentially been taken over to serve a wider, and in some respects, political agenda".

Today the Appeal Court disagreed.