Shouting is a lawful interrogation technique, says High Court

11 February 2013 by

10_03-the-smoking-compartment--the-interrogation-room-1Ali Hussein v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 95 (Admin) – read judgment

Collins J has dismissed a claim that the MOD’s policy of allowing interrogators to shout at a captured person in order to obtain information is unlawfully oppressive. Not only did the complaint fail but it was denounced as “misconceived” and one which should never have been pursued.

Background

 British armed services have two policies for questioning captured persons (CPERS) who are believed to possess valuable information which may protect the lives of other members of the forces or civilians, for example the location of roadside bombs. The first one deals with tactical questioning (TQ), which is routinely conducted at the point of capture. The other deals with interrogation, which is carried out by specialist trained troops in facilities approved for the detention of CPERS and equipped and authorised for interrogation.  Each is to be applied worldwide wherever CPERS need to be questioned by British troops. The individuals behind this claim are both Iraqi citizens who live in Iraq. Neither of them lives in Afghanistan, the only country where the policy is in use or likely to be used. Without the element of public interest in this case they would neither have been granted standing to pursue the claim.

When this litigation was first proposed, the Ministry of Defence was still awaiting the recommendations of Sir William Gage in the Baha Mousa Inquiry before finalising their new policy on questioning techniques (see my post on the report). When the report did come out, the Secretary of State for Defence reacted to Sir Gage’s recommendations by informing Parliament he accepted all of them save the proposal for a “blanket ban …. on the use of certain verbal and non physical techniques”. Without waiting for the detail of the new policy to assess whether it did in fact properly reflect Sir William’s concerns, public funding was granted and this claim was issued.

Following the publication of Sir Gage’s recommendations the following techniques involved in the so called “harsh policy” were prohibited: the requirement to maintain physical postures which are extremely uncomfortable, painful or exhausting, hooding, exposure to excessive noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food or water.  The new policy for questioning, the “Challenging Approach”, was designed to avoid the deficiencies of the “harsh policy” by prohibiting intimidating behaviour or threats of violence by the interrogator but allowing a range of attitudes such as sarcasm and scepticism that would focus the CPERS’s mind on the reality of the situation and the futility of not cooperating with the questioner.

It is intended to deliver a short sharp shock where a CPERS being interrogated appears to have deliberately disengaged from his questioner but there is a belief that he holds valuable information which the use of this tactic might elicit.

The new policy was designed, in short, to save lives without any resort to torture, cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment. The evidence before the court showed that this approach had achieved a result where a CPERS had ignored all attempts to question and was refusing to give any answers but, following its use, there was a re-engagement and the provision of valuable information.

The arguments

The essence of the claim was that shouting at a captured person during questioning, as proposed, was in effect the former “loud harsh” policy by another name. The first ground relied on by the claimant was that this approach involved the offence of common assault. This argument was, in Collins J’s view, “utterly without merit”:  there was nothing in the conduct of the questioning which could have led to a fear of immediate violence.

The second ground was that the defendant failed to abide by the Geneva Convention’s prohibition on certain types of intimidation. This argument was also rejected. Even assuming that a CPERS is protected by the Geneva Convention, the prohibition on extracting information from prisoners of war could not be used as a ground for saying that the Challenging Approach to a CPERS to get information breached that prohibition.

While it may be that there is a right of silence to be attributed to POWs, there is no such right applicable generally to CPERS. The questioning is not for the purpose of self incrimination but to obtain valuable information which may protect lives. The right not to incriminate oneself and the so-called right of silence are by no means necessarily coterminous.

The implications of the claimant’s submissions were that the discarding of the word “harsh” in the MOD’s questioning policy was mere window dressing. Again, the judge did not agree. From what he had seen in the excerpts from the hearings and the training and the limitations and controls on the use of Challenge Direct it was clear that “real efforts have been made to ensure compliance with the Geneva Conventions and to avoid any risk of non-compliance.” In his judgment, those efforts had succeeded.

Counsel for the claimant contended that to shout was oppressive and that sufficed to indicate that it was not humane treatment. But that was an unrealistic approach.

What is humane must be judged in the context of interrogation which will inevitably be to an extent oppressive for the person being interrogated.

If used in accordance with and applying the controls required by the policy the use of Challenge Direct could not be regarded as a breach of the obligation of humane treatment, under Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention or any other instrument.

The claimant’s suggestion that to shout in the manner permitted by the policy would render any answers given inadmissible in criminal proceedings was immaterial, said the Court. The purpose of the questioning is not to obtain admissions for the purpose of prosecution but to obtain information which would be likely to save lives and assist in the pursuit of those hostile to the British forces. “Oppressive” is not a word that should be applied loosely. For example in R v Mushtaq [2005] 1 WLR 1513  Lord Carswell said that oppression would be constituted by “questioning which by its nature, duration or other circumstances (including the fact of custody) excites hopes (such as hope of release) or fears, or so affects the mind of the subject that his will crumbles and he speaks when otherwise he would have stayed silent.” None of these observations showed that any real oppression exists in the proper use of Challenge Direct.

Hallett LJ agreed that this claim should be dismissed, adding the stern observation that she had “very real doubts as to the propriety of spending precious time and resources on this litigation.” It was premature and in her view misconceived.

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

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. rogerivanhart says:

    I sometimes wonder if Douglas Adams based the Vogons on old-school British interrogators. ‘Resistance is useless’. There really is no need for shouting; interrogators are now so skilled they can calmly get the most stubborn to divulge information they don’t realise they’re revealing.

Comments are closed.

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 care homes 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 ouster clauses 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: