|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
February 27th,
2010 - Judges Release Criticism of MI5 Agents in Binyam Mohamed Case |
|
Judges Release
Criticism of MI5 Agents in Binyam Mohamed Case By Frances Gibb & Sean O’Neill The Times February 27, 2010 Binyam Mohamed: said he was
tortured in Pakistan while being held by the CIA, with the knowledge of
British intelligence agents Damning criticism that one
and probably several British intelligence agents knew of the torture of a
former Guantánamo detainee was released by senior judges yesterday. Some security service
officials had a dubious record of involvement over the mistreatment of Binyam
Mohamed when he was held on behalf of the Government, one senior appeal judge
said. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls, also questioned MI5
officials’ frankness about this involvement, and the reliability of their
evidence to the courts. The judge’s criticism
prompted calls for the security services to be brought under increased
scrutiny. Sir Ken Macdonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions, writes
in The Times today that the present level of parliamentary scrutiny was
“unfit for a modern democracy”. Lord Neuberger’s comments
had originally been diluted, after they were circulated in draft form, prompting
protests from counsel for David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary. The
disclosure of that intervention, and the judge’s changes, brought accusations
that Lord Neuberger had watered down his comments after interference by
ministers. Yesterday Lord Judge, the
Lord Chief Justice, insisted: “This did not happen, and it is critical to the
integrity of the administration of justice that if any such misconception may
be taking root, it should be eradicated.” Lord Neuberger decided to
restore the essence of his criticisms after representations from the media
and lawyers for Mr Mohamed. Lord Judge said that there
had been no political interference in the decision, and insisted that judges
were entitled to change their drafts. A letter to the court by
Jonathan Sumption, QC, Mr Miliband’s counsel, was not secret or private, he
said. But it was an “elementary rule” that such communications could not be
made without alerting other parties. Only after Lord Neuberger
had amended his draft judgment did it become apparent that “something may
have gone awry with the arrangements for the delivery of Mr Sumption’s
letter”, said Lord Judge. The appeal judges agreed
that the robust criticism in the original draft paragraph should now be published
“in the interests of open justice”. Mr Mohamed has said that he
was tortured in Pakistan while being held by the CIA, with the knowledge of
British intelligence agents. Lord Neuberger and two of the
country’s other top judges - Lord Judge, and Sir Anthony May, President of
the Queen’s Bench Division - unanimously agreed that the intelligence
material should be published. Security service sources
denied yesterday that the intelligence agencies tried to cover up the
material, but they conceded that there had been issues connected with
locating and disclosing documents relevant to Mr Mohamed’s case. There remains a strong sense
of anger and disappointment with the judge’s criticisms. Jonathan Evans, the
head of MI5, said recently that the organisation had fought against the
release of the seven paragraphs because disclosure would damage
intelligence-sharing with America. It was not, he said, to “cover up supposed
British collusion in mistreatment”. Whitehall sources said
security service personnel were dedicated to protecting Britain, and in the
years after 9/11 had to function in difficult and dangerous conditions to
gather “lifesaving intelligence” about the alQaeda threat to Britain and the
West. The Court of Appeal ruling
this month led to the release of a seven-paragraph summary of 42 classified
CIA documents that were handed to MI5. They show that MI5 was aware that Mr
Mohamed was being continuously deprived of sleep, threatened with rendition
and subjected to “significant mental stress and suffering”. Cori Crider, the legal
director at Reprieve, which supports prisoner rights, said: “The sun shone on
open justice today. Throughout this process the judges have shown the utmost
integrity and concern for the public interest. One hopes the UK justices’
brethren across the sea are taking notes. Now that the paragraph has been
largely restored, questions linger ... What policies allowed such complicity
in torture? How many cases like Binyam’s were there? ... Only a full public
inquiry will answer the public’s concerns about what has been done.” Timeline February 5: Court of Appeal
circulates draft judgments in Binyam Mohamed ruling in which judges order
that seven paragraphs indicating what MI5 knew of Mr Mohamed's torture be
disclosed. February 8: E-mail arrives
at judges’ offices at 19.03 from Jonathan Sumption, QC, counsel for the
Foreign Secretary, expressing concerns about paragraph 168. February 9: Lord Neuberger
decides substantially to amend draft paragraph. Circulated to all parties
about lunchtime. Some lawyers learn for the first time of the Sumption letter
and judge’s amendment, and lodge objections. February 10: Appeal judges
decide to go ahead with judgment to release seven paragraphs at heart of
ruling. Lord Neuberger includes amended 168 but agrees to hear
representations from other parties. February 12: Deadline for
final representations on 168. February 16: Judgment on 168. External link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7043298.ece |