Terror detainees lose appeal

Press Association

Wednesday August 11, 2004

Ten foreign nationals being held without charge or trial in British jails on suspicion of terrorism today lost an appeal to have their cases reconsidered.

The court of appeal ruled against a challenge to the finding of an immigration court that the home secretary, David Blunkett, had "sound material" to back up his decision that the men were a risk to national security.

Lawyers for the 10 argued that evidence that may have obtained by the torture or ill-treatment of detainees in US military camps at Guantánamo Bay, in Cuba, and Bagram, in Afghanistan, should have been excluded.

Handing down the written judgement, Lord Justice Pill, one of a panel of three judges, said it was not suggested that the appellants had been tortured.

"Nothing has been brought to the attention of the court which would amount to such misuse of state power," he said.

Had the appeal been successful, the mens' lawyers would have asked for the individual cases to be reconsidered by the special immigration appeals commission (SIAC).

Their solicitor, Gareth Peirce, described the judgment as "terrifying", saying: "It shows that we have completely lost our way in this country, legally and morally.

"We have international treaty obligations which prevent the use of evidence obtained by torture in any proceedings.

"What this judgment says, by a 2-1 majority, is that, if it is obtained by agents of another country and not procured or connived at by UK agents, it is usable without any restriction and there is no obligation on the secretary of state to inquire into the origins of it."

Six of the men are detained at Belmarsh high security prison, two at Wood Hill, and one at Broadmoor psychiatric hospital. Another is in Morocco, but is fighting the home secretary's ruling that he is a suspected terrorist.

In a statement after the ruling, Mr Blunkett said: "I am pleased that my decision to certify these individuals as suspected international terrorists who pose a threat to our national security has been upheld.

"There has been a great deal of speculation about the cases put before the SIAC and whether they relied on material from other countries that may have been obtained using torture.

"Let me make it clear - we unreservedly condemn the use of torture and have worked hard with our international partners to eradicate this practice. However, it would be irresponsible not to take appropriate account of any information which could help protect national security and public safety."

Lawyers for the men are now expected to take steps to take the case to the House of Lords.

The 10 appellants are backed by civil liberties groups, which describes their treatment as "Britain's Guantánamo Bay".

The appeals stemmed from the terms of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, which was rushed through after the September 11 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

Under the emergency powers, the government must show only that it has "reasonable grounds to suspect" that foreign nationals have links to terror before issuing certificates to hold them.