Reveal Binyam 'torture' papers, court rules
Updated on 10 February 2010
As Foreign Secretary David Miliband loses his bid to stop the release of secret information relating to torture allegations in the case of Binyam Mohamed, the Foreign Office publishes an edited version of the "seven paragraphs".
In response to today's ruling, the Foreign Office website published the following seven paragraphs.
THE FOLLOWING SEVEN PARAGRAPHS HAVE BEEN REDACTED
[It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.
(v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.
(vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and “disappearing” were played upon.
(vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews;
(viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.
(ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.
(x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities]
Responding to today's decision, David Miliband issued the following statement: "The Government accepts the decision of the Court of Appeal that, in the light of disclosures in the US court, it should publish the seven paragraphs at issue in the case of Binyam Mohamed.
"At the heart of this case was the principle that if a country shares intelligence with another, that country must agree before its intelligence is released.
"This 'control principle' is essential to the intelligence relationship between Britain and the US.
"The Government fought the case to preserve this principle, and today's judgment upholds it.
"It agreed that the control principle is integral to intelligence sharing. The court has today ordered the publication of the seven paragraphs because in its view their substance had been put into the public domain by a decision of a US court in another case.
"Without that disclosure, it is clear that the Court of Appeal would have overturned the Divisional Court's decision to publish the material.
"The Government has made sustained and successful efforts to ensure Mr Mohamed's legal counsel had full access to the material in question.
"We remain determined to uphold our very strong commitment against mistreatment of any kind."
The paragraphs have been published on the Foreign Office website, he added.
A "compelling public interest"?
For a case which has centred on the non-publication of just seven paragraphs of a high court judgment, it has had enormous traction in international politics, writes Andy Davies.
The long-running case of Binyam Mohamed versus the foreign secretary (today's appeal follows six high court judgements) has even, if you accept the argument of the government, unsettled international intelligence relationships, with the potential to cause considerable damage to Britain's national security.
Which is why the foreign secretary has been so desperate to keep these famous "seven paragraphs" secret and which is why he will be hoping that his appeal against their disclosure today is upheld.
What is now known is that the paragraphs summarise US intelligence reports of the treatment of the former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed (now back in the UK) during his unlawful detention in Pakistan in April and May 2002.
It is a description passed by the CIA to British intelligence and it involves the actions of US officials.
According to the courts, what is contained in these paragraphs "gives rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".
Binyam Mohamed's legal team want the reports disclosed "in the interests of open justice".
Mr Mohamed has always claimed that he was tortured in Pakistan and Morocco en route to Afghanistan and then Guantanamo.
A United Nations report on secret detention recently documented those claims, describing how in Pakistan, for example, he was "deprived of sleep and food, beaten with a leather strap, stripped naked, photographed, anally penetrated, shackled".
He has also claimed that British intelligence was complicit in his alleged torture by supplying personal information to those holding him, an issue which is currently the subject of a Metropolitan police investigation. MI5 has always denied any collusion in torture.
Mohamed's lawyers have argued that it is utterly futile for the government to try to keep these reports concealed, given that much of what they detail is already in the public domain.
The government believes, however, that "disclosure would lead to the US and other foreign governments re-evaluating the extent to which they believe they can safely provide the UK with information".
A letter from the CIA was even produced in court which the government cited as evidence that the anglo-American intelligence partnership was under threat over this issue.
Last October, however, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, dismissed the government's argument, ruling that "the suppression of reports of wrongdoing by officials in circumstances which cannot in any way affect national security is inimical to the rule of law. Championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, is the cornerstone of democracy".
There was a "compelling public interest" to disclose these seven paragraphs, they insisted, rejecting the foreign secretary's claims that the passing of intelligence from the US to Britain would be restricted as a result of any disclosure. So, disclosure was ordered but then immediately postponed while an appeal was in process.
