On Thursday 8th December the Law Lords handed down judgment in a landmark case challenging the admissibility in the UK courts of
evidence obtained through the use of
torture. A panel of 7 Law Lords ruled emphatically that
torture evidence is not admissible in the UK courts.
Leigh Day & Co intervened in the House of Lords on behalf of a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and campaigning organisations. These were:
Amnesty International, the
AIRE Centre, 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 of Human Rights,
INTERIGHTS, the
Law Society of England and Wales,
Liberty,
The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture,
REDRESS and the
World Organisation Against Torture.
Detention without trial
The appeals were brought by 10 foreign nationals who had previously been detained without charge or trial. They were challenging a disturbing judgment of the Court of Appeal in August 2004 which held that evidence obtained by torture could be used against the men provided that the UK had not itself colluded in the torture.
Following the Law Lords ruling in December 2004 that the detention without charge or trial was unlawful (in which
Leigh Day & Co also intervened on behalf of
Amnesty International), this ruling sends another powerful message to the government that it cannot trample over deeply embedded constitutional rights and international obligations in the furtherance of their “war on terror”.
Torture-induced evidence not acceptable
It is now clear and beyond question that evidence extracted under torture cannot be relied upon in the UK courts, except against those who committed the torture.
In a powerful lead judgment the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, stated “I am startled, even a little dismayed, at the suggestion (and the acceptance by the Court of Appeal majority) that this deeply rooted tradition and an international obligation solemnly and explicitly undertaken can be overridden by statute and a procedural rule”
For further information about this case please contact
Jamie Beagent on 020 7650 1200
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.