Iraqis win appeal for inquiry into torture

The group appealed against a High Court decision upholding the Government’s refusal to order an immediate, wide-ranging investigation into whether there was systemic abuse, as opposed to ill treatment by “a few bad apples”.

Some 128 Iraqis complain that ill treatment occurred between March 2003 and December 2008 in UK-controlled detention facilities in the aftermath of the invasion.

The High Court ruled last December the inquiry being sought was unnecessary because the Government had set up a team, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), to investigate the allegations of abuse with a view to the identification and punishment of anyone responsible for wrongdoing.

But yesterday three appeal judges ruled IHAT “lacks independence” and ordered the Defence Secretary to reconsider.

They also found other inquiries failed to fully meet the needs of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against inhuman and degrading treatment.

The ruling was made by Lord Justice Maurice Kay, vice president of the Court of Appeal’s civil division, sitting with Lord Justice Sullivan and Lord Justice Pitchford. It was a dramatic victory for Ali Zaki Mousa, from Basra, the lead claimant, who alleges he endured months of beatings and other abuse in custody of British soldiers in 2006-07.

High Court judges Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Silber had rejected his claims for an immediate fresh public inquiry, saying the IHAT investigations were sufficient to meet the needs of justice, saying it was possible a new inquiry might be “required in due course” - but it was a matter which could “lawfully be left for decision at a future date”.

They gave new Defence Secretary Philip Hammond until next Wednesday to decide whether to seek to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.