The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that incriminating statements against him had been obtained by torture.
Held: His deportation to Jordan would be in violation of article 6. The court adopted the meaning to be given to the phrase ‘flagrant denial of justice’ in the partly dissenting opinion in Mamatkulov, which it said was a stringent test of unfairness: para 260. It was satisfied that the ill-treatment of the witnesses which was alleged amounted to torture. That meant that the two questions it had to consider were whether a real risk of the admission of that evidence was sufficient and, if so, whether a flagrant denial of justice would arise in the applicant’s case. It was conscious of the fact that the Grand Chamber did not find that the test had been met in Mamatkulov. But the applicant’s complaint was not of the general and unspecific kind that was made in that case. It was a sustained and well-founded attack on a State Security Court system that would try him in breach of one of the most fundamental norms of international justice, which was the prohibition on the use of evidence obtained by torture.
Lech Garlicki, P
[2012] ECHR 56, (2012) 32 BHRC 62, (2012) 55 EHRR 1, CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD000813909
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
Cited – Mamatkulov And Askarov v Turkey ECHR 4-Feb-2005
Grand Chamber – while there may have been reasons for doubting whether the applicants would receive a fair trial, there was not sufficient information to show that any possible irregularities in the trial were liable to constitute a flagrant denial . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
At ECHR – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 6-Feb-2012
Application for bail. . .
Judgment – Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2012
(Press Release) Diplomatic assurances will protect Abu Qatada from torture but he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him. . .
At ECHR – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 28-May-2012
SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his . .
At ECHR – Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
At ECHR – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
At ECHR – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
Cited – Kapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC 10-Jul-2013
The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in . .
Cited – Ismail, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Jul-2016
The claimant ha been involved in the management of a company operating a ferry in Egypt. The claimant had been acquitted in Egypt of criminal liability, but then convicted in his absence on appeal, after submissions made on his behalf were . .
Cited – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, International
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.465697