Binyam torture case: court lifts ban
Updated on 26 February 2010
One of Britain's most senior judges has accused MI5 of misleading ministers and parliament over the alleged torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed while in American custody.
Lord Neuberger, and two other top judges agreed the robust criticism should now be published "in the interests of open justice".
As Channel 4 News reported, a key paragraph was left out of the court's draft judgment on 10 February after a government lawyer objected to what it said about MI5.
But the Appeal Court has now decided to release the original wording contained in paragraph 168 "in the interests of open justice" - after pressure from lawyers acting for Mr Mohamed and media organisations.
It has also published a new version of the paragraph, which contains strong criticism of MI5, saying: "some of whose officers appear to have a dubious record relating to actual involvement, and frankness about any such involvement, with the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed when he was held at the behest of US officials.
"Not only is there some reason for distrusting such a statement (on the treatment of Mr Mohamed), given that it is based on Security Services' advice and information, because of previous, albeit general, assurances in 2005, but also the Security Services have an interest in the suppression of such information."
Foreign Secretary David Miliband told Channel 4 News: "The security services certainly have no interest in keeping information away from minister, because I know from my own experience over the last three years about the way in which information is provided.
"They certainly do not seek to keep information away from the courts, because as this case has shown over the last 18 months, as material has been demanded, as searches have taken place, it's been provided to the courts in a timely and appropriate manner.
"I don't believe it's right to say that there is an interest or a culture in respect of the 'suppression of information'. That's not what the intelligence agencies are about.
"They are obviously secret organisations, they depend on secrecy for their effectiveness, but not secrecy from ministers or the courts."
Home secretary Alan Johnston also said he was "deeply disappointed" at the ruling.
For more Channel 4 News coverage of the Binyam Mohamed case
- Binyam Mohamed: the judgements
- MI5 chief denies Binyam cover-up
- Draft Binyam ruling: MI5 human rights dubious
Mohamed tortured
Mr Miliband had wanted to stop the courts revealing US intelligence reports which showed that Mr Mohamed had been tortured.
The CIA documents revealed that MI5 had been aware that Mr Mohamed was being subjected to sleep deprivation and "significant mental stress and suffering".
Government lawyer Jonathan Sumption said paragraph 168 of the judgment implied that MI5 did not respect human rights and had failed to renounce "coercive interrogation" techniques - and he succeeded in having it removed.
Intelligence relationship
Mr Miliband had opposed the publication of material from the CIA documents because he was concerned that Britain's intelligence relationship with the US might be affected.
Lord Neuberger says he accepts that Mr Miliband "genuinely believes, and has some grounds for believing" that information from foreign intelligence services could be curtailed if it was published because it would be seen as "an unjustifiable breach of the control principle".
But he adds that the material should be published because "there is nothing inherently sensitive in the information in those paragraphs".
Cori Crider, legal director at Reprieve, which represented Mr Mohamed, said: "The sun shone on open justice today.
"Now that the paragraph has been largely restored, questions linger. What policies allowed such complicity in torture?
"How many cases like Binyam's were there? We know of Shaker Aamer, Rangzieb Ahmed, and the list seems to grow by the day.
"Only a full public inquiry will answer the public's concerns about what has been done in our name."
But the judgement was condemned by Home Secretary Alan Johnson.
"I am deeply disappointed that the court has decided to criticise the Security Service in this way.
"The Government respects the right of the judges to reach their own judgment. But it is also right that, where we disagree with their conclusions, we say so," he said.
"We totally reject any suggestion that the Security Services have a systemic problem in respecting human rights.
"We wholly reject too that they have any interest in suppressing or withholding information from ministers or the courts."
