Fruit of the poisoned tree: evidence obtained under torture in the UK

7 October 2010 by

 

Ghailani

Updated | A judge in New York has barred prosecutors of a suspected-terrorist from using the testimony of a man whose evidence may be tainted by CIA torture. What would happen if a similar scenario arose in the UK?

The New York Times reports that those prosecuting Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani in the first civilian trial of a man held at Guantanamo Bay have suffered a setback: “just as the trial was to begin on Wednesday, Judge Kaplan ruled that he would not allow [a man who was to testify that Ghailani sold weapons to him]  to testify. … the government had acknowledged that it had identified and located the witness through interrogation of Mr. Ghailani when he was earlier held in a secret overseas jail run by the Central Intelligence Agency. His lawyers have said he was tortured there.” The judge said:

 

… the Constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests… We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction. To do less would diminish us and undermine the foundation upon which we stand.

What would happen if the issue had arisen in the UK? In fact, a similar case famously came before the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) just under 5 years ago. The House of Lords ruled in 2005 in the case of A & Ors v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71 on the appeal of ten men accused of terrorism. The men challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeal that evidence obtained in United States detention camps could be used in proceedings against them.

The House of Lords ruled that the evidence should always be excluded if it was more likely than not that it had been obtained under torture. The court relied on a combination of the common law, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and principles of public international law. Lord Bingham, who sadly passed away last month, gave the leading judgment, and could hardly have put the principle in stronger terms:

… the English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years, and that abhorrence is now shared by over 140 countries which have acceded to the Torture Convention. 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 a statute and a procedural rule which make no mention of torture at all.

He went on:

The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted. To that question I would give a very clear negative answer.

Ultimately, Lord Bingham stressed that the executive and the judiciary have different functions and different responsibilities. It is one thing “for tainted information to be used by the executive [or the police] when making operational decisions“. It is quite another, however, “for the judicial arm of the state to admit such information as evidence when adjudicating definitively upon the guilt or innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence. In the latter case repugnance to torture demands that proof of facts should be found in more acceptable sources than information extracted by torture.”

In the years following, Lord Bingham’s robust restatement of the rule of law was cited in a number of cases which have reached the UK’s highest courts, most notably the litigation surrounding UK citizens who allege they were tortured whilst detained abroad, including in Guantanamo Bay. The UK courts, emboldened by new powers under the Human Rights Act as well as the A & Ors. case, have placed the actions of the security services firmly in the public eye where they were once in the shadows, and have consistently criticised illiberal government policy. A great distance has been travelled away from judicial deference to the security services since Lord Denning said that “In some parts of the world national security has on occasions been used as an excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England.

So, if the same situation arose in the UK, and the evidence in issue was more likely than not to have been obtained under torture, or a “real risk” that it had been (see para 56 of A & Ors) it would be excluded from court. However, if there was merely an unrebutted suspicion that the evidence had been obtained under torture, the evidence would be allowed. So it would be wrong to say that evidence obtained under torture would never be used in a UK court: rather, evidence which had probably been so obtained would be excluded.

In the US case, Judge Kaplan said that “the government has failed to prove that Abebe’s testimony is sufficiently attenuated from Ghailani’s coerced statements to permit its receipt in evidence.” It would appear that since it was established (that is, at least more likely than not) that Ghailani’s statement was “coerced”, the prosecutors had to divorce the witness’s statement from that tainted evidence. It had failed to do so. Following the A & Ors case, the result in the UK would probably be the same. In light of Lord Bingham’s ruling, no UK court would dare to do otherwise.

Updated, 7 Oct: The post has been updated to reflect the initial confusion between two different A & Ors cases, both with leading judgments by Lord Bingham. The case referred to above is not the so-called ‘Belmarsh case’, which related to detention without charge, and can be found here. Apologies for that.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

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


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.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: