Another week, another Binyam Mohamed judgment. This time, Thomas LJ and Lloyd-Jones J have decided to restore to their previous judgment the passages they redacted out at the request of the Foreign Secretary, who claims they’d endanger national security – but not yet, since he intends to appeal not only against that decision but against the decision in that previous judgment to restore to an earlier judgment passages they had initially redacted from that one. And in the meatime they have inserted into their previous judgment passages giving an unobjectionable “gist” of their reasoning on the bits that are now being appealed. Got that? It is all a bit confusing.
More importantly than all that, the court has given the Foreign Secretary permission to appeal – he argued that
an appeal has now become a matter of urgency and that it should be expedited
with which I heartily agree. I don’t blame the judges entirely for the mess here – no one comes out looking especially good as a result of this case, which has become increasingly absurd and in which the original issue – whether certain information should be disclosed to Binyam Mohamed – has been resolved, overtaken by time and apparently forgotten by all. As I’ve said before, the sooner this gets to appeal, the better.
As someone said on another blog – “One can hear the moans from Denning’s tomb.”
The legal costs in the Binyam Mohamend case are becoming ridiculous but there is much much more to come! … AND … IF the case ever gets to proper trial then we might well be seeing the government asking for “special advocates” unless of course the latest judicial wheeze of Silber J – (Al Rawi v Security Service) – is drowned at birth for the judicial legislation which it is.
The government’s stance on Binyam Mohamed, Al Rawi and all these others is doing Britain no credit whatsoever and other nations must be doubting Britain’s real commitment to the U.N. Convention on Torture.
true peter – but when there’s a chance to suck some american dick, human rights can go waterboard itself.
.-= simply wondered´s last blog ..self-serving scum =-.
There already are special advocates I think, Peter.
I agree that the American attitude here is unnecessarily unhelpful and pig-headed – but I blame them more than our own government, I think. I don’t blame them nearly as much. And (without for a moment underestimating the political importance of the UK’s attitude to torture) I’m less convinced than everyone else is that this legal case is quite the human rights cause celebre that it seems. Reprieve are using it brilliantly to embarrass the government and focus attention on its possible connivance in torture – fair enough. But what is the “proper trial” you want, Peter? The case isn’t about his treatment by the UK or even by the US, and he’s no longer asking for any actual remedy. It’s now only about how much exactly the judges should say in their judgments. We know already that the US intelligence documents give some support to Mohamed’s claims to have been tortured, and give rise to a prima facie case at least of inhuman and degrading treatment – the judges have said so. What is it, really, that we don’t know? I think this legal case about publication has now become a surrogate for a real argument about the UK’s role.
Carl – thanks for your response. Binyam Mohamed and the redacted judgments issue is one thing. If I recall correctly, that arose from the wish by BM’s lawyers to obtain documents which they claimed would have assisted BM at a trial which was planned to take place before the American Military Commission. Of course, in February 2009, BM was returned to the U.K. following the charges being dropped (October 2008). The Foreign Secretary argued Public Interest Immunity and 6 High Court judgments (over 15 months) have ensued on that issue which, as you rightly say, ought to be resolved PDQ.
Then there are the claims by several men – including Binyam Mohamed – considered by Silber J in Al Rawi and others v Security Service and others. Here, according to Silber J, the claimants are seeking “damages in relation to the alleged acts or omissions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and the Home Office …..” ” The thrust of the claims is that each of the defendants is alleged to have caused or contributed to the detention of each claimant and his alleged ill-treatment by foreign authorities. The case for each claimant is that he was subjected to unlawful extraordinary rendition, to torture and to inhuman and degrading treatment during the course of his detention. It is said by the claimants that none of them has ever been involved in terrorism. The defendants deny each of these allegations.”
This is the “proper trial” to which I referred and it is here where Silber J ruled that “special advocates” could be used. Out here, it looks rather like “judicial legislation” under the guise of the court’s right to control its own procedure. It seems that this is a “first” in a purely civil case.
‘It’s now only about how much exactly the judges should say in their judgments. ‘
how much more celebre could a cause get? of course the substantive point about what the british govt did or countenanced is important (especially to those victimised), but surely the courts deciding for themselves what should be made public is absolutely critical to our basic freedoms, the rule of law and respect for it. the judiciary are the new radicals (as the young seem to have better things to do these days) and the key struggle of our times is between them and the wholly merged executive and legislature (though, as you will be much more aware than i, a perusal of bagehot will convince us that this is nothing new). it’s coming to something when the privileged class are the new defenders of the liberty of the masses.
.-= simply wondered´s last blog ..self-serving scum =-.
Interesting angle from simply wondered. Do the judges see Miliband’s approach to this as an attempt to establish some form of censorship or veto over the contents of their judgments? I am not sure whether they do or not. However, so far, they have considered it necessary to exlude certain points – at least until the appellate courts settle the matter.