Torture secrecy case returns to Court
Binyam Mohamed

Torture secrecy case returns to Court

13 March 2009

Leigh Day & Co will be returning to the High Court on behalf of torture victim, Binyam Mohamed, on Wednesday 22 April 2009 where they will argue that details of Mr Mohamed’s ill-treatment should be made public after all.

In a judgment on 4 February 2009, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd, upheld the Foreign Secretary’s claim to cover up the details on the basis of “national security”. The judgment recognised the powerful public interest in bringing to light Mr Mohamed’s treatment and what the UK authorities knew of it. However, the judges held that because the US Government had threatened to re-assess intelligence sharing if their actions were made public and because the Court were led to believe that the Obama administration had maintained the threat, they had no choice but to find for the Foreign Secretary.

However, after the judgment was given the Foreign Secretary made a number of public statements which undermined the basis for the Judges’ findings: firstly it was said that the US had in fact made no such threat to the UK and secondly that the Obama administration had not actually been asked for its view.

In light of these revelations, Mr Mohamed has applied for the judges to reconsider whether the record of his treatment should be made public after all. His application is supported by a coalition of media organisations who will also be present at the hearing on 22 April.

Richard Stein said: "Mr Mohamed is making this application because he believes strongly that irrefutable evidence of his ill-treatment and torture should be made public. It is very important, not only so that a light can be shone on the involvement of the British security services in rendition and torture, but also personally to Mr Mohamed because there has been so much speculation circulating about what actually happened to him."

Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.

Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.