The claimant was held by the US. He claimed he had been tortured by them, and sought release of dicuments which allow him to present his case. The respondent sought to prevent disclosure using Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates.
Held: The claimant had been taken unlawfully. The documents were essential to him in defending himself before the US convening commission. There was no good reason why the documents were not made available to the claimant by the US. The US now produced statements made by the defendant after being held for two years incommunicado by them and produced only after alleged torture. The senior US prosecutor had resigned because he had not been allowed to disclose exculpatory material, including sleep deprivation treatment. The US had then discharged all charges against the claimant. There remained however serious allegations of misconduct against a friendly power. The matter should be adjourned pending a further hearing. Despite promises that only certain information would be redacted, heavy unexplained redactions remained.
Judges:
Thomas LJ, Lloyd Jones J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 2519 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
See Also – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) Admn 29-Aug-2008
The claimant sought release of documents so that he could defend himself in a tribunal in the US. He said the documents would support his assertion that he had been subject to extraordinary rendition and had ‘disappeared’ for two years. Redactions . .
Cited – Rustenberg Platinum Mines v Pan American Airways 1977
A party should be given advance notice of an intention to make serious allegations of wilful misconduct. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
See Also – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 5) Admn 16-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to assert that he had been tortured whilst held by the US Authorities. He sought publication of an unredacted report supplied by the US security services to the respondent. The respondent argued that the full publication was . .
See Also – Mohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (60 Admn 19-Nov-2009
The respondent had over time refused to allow publication of parts of a document disclosed to him by US security services. The court had previously delivered redacted judgments, and now asked whether and to what extent the redacted parts should be . .
See Also – Mohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 10-Feb-2010
The claimant had sought discovery and publication of materials supplied to the defendant by US security services which, he said, would support his allegations that he had been tortured by the US and that this had been known to the defendant.
See Also – Binyan Mohamed, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 26-Feb-2010
The claimant had sought public disclosure of documents supplied to the defendant by US security services which might support his claim that he had been tortured by the US, and that the defendant knew of it. The draft judgment was to be handed down . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Criminal Practice, Torts – Other
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277295