The BBC is claiming "Ban on 'torture documents' lifted". This headline does not reflect the truth; In spite of the subheading appearing to support it. "The High Court has ruled that US intelligence documents containing details of the alleged torture of a former UK resident can be released".
However, near the bottom of the article is a link claiming to be the full judgment of the court. Given that 7 paragraphs of the judgment have been censored, it cannot in any sense be claimed to be a full judgment! It is in reality a part judgment.
In law it is only the ratio (reason for deciding) which is important in a judgment. But as Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones point out in the judgment, the censored paragraphs are crucial to their reasoning. The judges state "Indeed we take the view the reasons why we reached our conclusions cannot be fully understood without these paragraphs". Therefore, the judgment is meaningless!
I am disgusted that the judges allowed themselves to be dictated to by the Foreign Secretary, Davd Miliband, especially given that he was a party to the proceedings; and being a losing party at that!
It does not help the BBC "Nation shall speak unto nation" when the analysis provided by Dominic Casciani, home affairs correspondent, BBC News, fails to cover the legal points.
The judgment is censored at paragraphs; 38(4); 74(2); 79(7); 81; and 102. The judges refer to 7 censored paragraphs, however, even being almost totally innumerate myself I can still only count 5 listed above from the judgment. [Since clarified] "Five paragraphs – all the discussion of torture – were therefore redacted".
The judgment note states that the judges are following an earlier order made by Mr Justice Sullivan to allow the Security Services to see the draft judgment "for checking" before it was released to the other parties to the proceedings and handed down officially by the court.
This is highly improper and totally unlawful.
The Security Services are defendants in the proceedings. There would have been nothing improper had the draft judgment been released to all the parties to the proceedings at the same time. This then allows all the parties to check the draft judgment for any possible inaccuracies in the text before it is handed down in court.
However, it is an abuse of process for the Security Services to request censorship of the judgment and for the court to allow this request. The censored paragraphs do not relate to national security. Rather, they relate to the rather embarrassing truth that the government was complicit in the torture of Binyam Mohamed. As Clive Stafford-Smith, Binyam Mohamed's lawyer observes: "It is irrational to pretend that evidence of torture should be classified as a threat to national security".
That complete idiot, Shadow foreign secretary, William Hague said it was "for the US administration to decide whether or not these paragraphs should be released". English law does not recognise any authority for the Yanks to have any jurisdiction in relation to dictating what our judges write in their judgments. In effect, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, a losing party to the proceedings, is attempting to substitute his desired outcome for the judgment of the court.
The government's lawyers, the Treasury Solicitor, lost the case for the government. That should have been the end of the matter, subject to any appeal which may be lodged. The Treasury Solicitor acting for the Security Services wrote a letter to the court explaining the concerns of the Security Services.
"Their concerns...are directed at ensuring the Secretary of State's position on any appeal is not prejudiced by inclusion of text in the judgment which might reveal the content of the 7 paragraphs. It is also their assessment that placing the particular parts of the judgment...into the public domain would give rise to damage to national security".
Publishing the full judgment uncensored would in no way affect the Foreign Secretary's position on any appeal, if indeed there are any grounds for an appeal. The only damage publishing the full judgment would cause is to the government's credilbility (if there is any left) in the minds of the public.
It remains now for Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones to do their public duty and publish the judgment of the court in full, that is, without censorship by the government, as soon as possible. For example, first thing on Monday morning!
UPDATE: I have deliberately refused to use the word redacted when the correct word in this case should be censored. However, this redaction toolkit is interesting.
UPDATED UPDATE:
Judges state that Foreign Secretary, David Miliband is irrational in seeking to hide evidence of the crime of torture!
No comments:
Post a Comment