In a landmark judgment, the High Court has ruled that information on Mohamed’s treatment should be released, despite the objections of the Foreign Office. Index on Censorship reports
(more…)
Judges told Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s lawyers today that he must make it “abundantly” clear that the release of documents relating to the torture allegations of a former Guantamano Bay detainee, Binyam Mohamed, would directly result in the US government withholding intelligence. If the US were to reassess security sharing with the UK and put British lives at risk as a result, the decision facing the judges would be “a very simple one”.
Lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, and for the British and US media, including Index on Censorship, are requesting the release of a seven-paragraph summary detailing his treatment. Mohamed was arrested in 2002 in Pakistan after the invasion of Afghanistan.
David Miliband demanded a gagging order, stating that the disclosure of the document “could likely result in serious damage to UK and US national security”. Today, government lawyers confirmed that US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton shares this view. “What we don’t want is yet another muddle. I want to tie the secretary down. So far the statement is not good enough,” said Lord Justice Thomas.
The court has asked the foreign secretary to clarify his position.
In his latest efforts to keep details of the UK’s alleged involvement in the torture of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed secret, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband has made a third public interest immunity (PII) certificate.
On 6 May, the High Court ruled that the judgment on Binyam Mohamed should be reopened, following an application from both UK and international media, including Index on Censorship.
The Court had, with reluctance, originally redacted seven paragraphs from the judgment, after the government claimed that their publication would affect the UK’s intelligence sharing relationship with the American administration. The media then made an application for the judgment to be reopened.
In a highly dramatic day at the High Court on 22 April, lawyers for Binyam Mohamed and the media accused the government of misleading the court. It transpired that the government had not in fact actually asked the Obama administration if the publication of the paragraphs would endanger their relationship.
The government then took advantage of the time given it by the court following the hearing last month to approach the Obama administration for a statement, as follows: “Public disclosure of this information reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom’s national security. Specifically, disclosure of this information may result in a constriction of the US-UK relationship, as well as UK relationships with other countries.”
But there are many questions that need to be answered, and lawyers for the Guardian have now made a request for further clarification — who in the Obama administration wrote the statement? Was it preceded by any correspondence between the foreign office and the US administration? Did the foreign office assist in the drafting of the letter? It’s clear how desperate the government is to keep the paragraphs secret. And even though Lord Justice Thomas declared himself “baffled” as to why the Obama administration should have any objection to the release of the Mohamed paragraphs when it had just released the torture memos, it may be tough for the High Court judges to resist the foreign secretary. However much they may like to.
Index on Censorship has learned that government lawyers are attempting to submit secret evidence on the treatment of former Guantanamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed, as the Foreign Office continues to attempt to prevent the release of potentially damning information about his detention.
In a letter to the judges presiding over the case, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, the Treasury Solicitor has claimed that a Public Interest Immunity certificate could be necessary for any further evidence submitted by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. This would allow the Foreign Office to supply evidence to the court in secret, on a basis not open to challenge or scrutiny.
The government is fighting an application by international media organisations, including Index on Censorship, to obtain the release of seven paragraphs that were redacted from an earlier judgment concerning Mohamed’s treatment at the hands of US officials. The Foreign Office had claimed that any release would endanger future intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US, a claim Mohamed’s lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, has described as ‘seriously misleading’.