Al Rawi disclosure evidence of torture complicity?

15 July 2010 by

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/07/15/al-rawi-disclo…ure-complicity/The Guardian have published a number of documents which have been disclosed to the High Court as part of a claim for compensation by men claiming they were mistreated abroad with the knowledge of UK security services.

The Guardian claims that the documents reveal the “the true extent of the Labour government’s involvement in the illegal abduction and torture of its own citizens”. Key passages can be found here.

The documents were disclosed as part of the ongoing case of Al Rawi and Ors v The Security Services. Although the case has not yet been heard, it has been the subject of a number of high-profile applications for secret documents which the Government have generally lost. We posted recently on the judgment of Mr Justice Silber leading to the disclosure of some of the most recent documents which the Guardian have published (see also here).

500,000 more?

Interestingly, the newspaper also report that the Government “has identified up to 500,000 documents that may be relevant, and says it has deployed 60 lawyers to scrutinise them, a process that it suggests could take until the end of the decade.” In light of this, it is difficult to see how the upcoming public inquiry into complicity with torture will begin by the end of this year and finish by the end of 2011, as the Prime Minister suggested in his announcement.

The relationship between the civil claim in Al Rawi and the upcoming torture inquiry is not yet clear. The inquiry’s terms of reference have not been published, but it will deal with many or all of the same issues identified in the case.

The trial in Al Rawi may never arise in any event. When he announced the inquiry, the Prime Minister said that “We can’t start that inquiry while criminal investigations are ongoing. And it’s not feasible to start it when there so many civil law suits that remain unresolved.” He went on to say “we are committed to mediation with those who have brought civil claims about their detention in Guantanamo. And wherever appropriate, we will offer compensation. As soon as we’ve made enough progress, an independent Inquiry will be held.” This sounds like a reasonable indication that the Al Rawi claims may be settled before they reach court, particularly given how long full disclosure may take.

Green paper

In the longer term, the Government is looking to address problems for intelligence services in having to disclose formerly secret documents. At the same time as announcing the torture inquiry, the Prime Minister also announced that a Green Paper is to be published which will set out its initial proposals for how intelligence is treated in the full range of judicial proceedings, and which will include “addressing the concerns of allies“. The committee is to be chaired by Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

If the committee seeks to restrict further potential disclosures of the type in the Al Rawi case in order to protect relationships with its international allies, this may lead to further court clashes of the type seen repeatedly in Al Rawi as well as more rebukes from the Judiciary.

Read more:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: