Judge reopens MI5 torture row

Gordon Brown yesterday defended MI5 after the Security Service was strongly criticised by a senior judge over its role in the case of former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Binyam Mohamed.

The Prime Minister said in a statement that he had spoken to MI5 director general Jonathan Evans to express his gratitude for the work the service did protecting the public.

Earlier Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, had said denials by the Security Service of knowing of any ill treatment of US terror suspect detainees "does not seem to have been true" in Mr Mohamed's case.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The judge ruled the evidence showed that "some Security Services officials 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".

The judge's remarks led to further calls for a full public inquiry into allegations that the UK has been complicit in torture.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he was "deeply disappointed that the court has decided to criticise the Security Service in this way".

Mr Mohamed says he was tortured in Pakistan in 2002 while held by the US, with the knowledge of MI5.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Foreign Secretary David Miliband asked the Court of Appeal to block a High Court decision to publish a seven-paragraph summary of what MI5 knew about his ill treatment.

The summary showed MI5 was aware Mr Mohamed was being continuously deprived of sleep, threatened with rendition and being subjected to "significant mental stress and suffering".

Earlier this month, Lord Neuberger and two other top appeal judges rejected Mr Miliband's appeal against the High Court summary becoming public knowledge.

A dispute erupted between the Government and the court over a key paragraph in a draft version of Lord Neuberger's judgment.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Jonathan Sumption QC, representing the Foreign Secretary, said paragraph 168 went "well beyond" anything found by the High Court judges.

As a result the judge altered the paragraph – leading to accusations that he was "watering down" his ruling – and said he would further reconsider it. Yesterday, he reverted to the original paragraph, with limited modifications, saying its findings were "fully supported" by the evidence.

He removed a reference to the Foreign Office "which was not really justified" and made it clear that his observations "relate to the facts of this case".

Later the Home Secretary said: "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.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"The UK's security and intelligence services do outstanding work to keep us safe against a real and continuing terrorist threat, and they do so under proper control and oversight – by ministers, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the commissioners and, where necessary, the courts".

Mr Johnson said allegations regarding one MI5 officer alleged to have known of Mr Mohamed's ill treatment, referred to as Witness B, had been referred by the Government to the Attorney General.

They were being investigated by the police and were part of a claim for civil damages before the High Court. He said: "It is vital that these legal processes, which will provide the right level of independent scrutiny, are not undermined and that we allow them to come to their own conclusions.

"We totally reject any suggestion that the Security Services have a systemic problem in respecting human rights.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "This has been a shameful business. Complicity in torture is bad enough without repeat and strenuous attempts to cover it up.

"Nonetheless despite the Government's efforts, the Court of Appeal has defended principles prohibiting torture and protecting open justice that are essential to the rule of law."