UK bans 'torture evidence'

LONDON - The Law Lords ruled today that information obtained using torture anywhere in the world was unacceptable as evidence in the British courts.

Human rights groups said the ruling sent a clear signal to governments around the globe, who are wrestling with accusations they have benefited from information obtained by torture.

The decision by the House of Lords comes a day after the United States explicitly banned its interrogators from treating detainees inhumanely.

The issue has plagued US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a European trip during which she has tried to convince sceptics Washington does not torture detainees despite reports of secret CIA prisons in East European countries and the covert transportation of prisoners.

The eight defendants at the heart of the case say they were held by British authorities on the basis of evidence extracted using torture in US prison camps such as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

"Torture is an unqualified evil. It can never be justified. Rather it must always be punished," said Lord Brown, one of seven Law Lords asked to rule on the issue.

The government said it did not condone torture, but that the burden to demonstrate that evidence used against them had been obtained by torture would be placed upon defendants.

The director of human rights group Liberty, Shami Chakbrabati, said the ruling sent a clear signal around the world and Amnesty International called it "momentous".

"This ruling shreds any vestige of legality with which the UK government had attempted to defend a completely unlawful and reprehensible policy," rights group Amnesty International said.

BRITAIN "DOES NOT CONDONE TORTURE"

The government had argued that its secretive Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) needed to consider all information, no matter how it was obtained, to be able to decide whether terrorism suspects were a threat to national security.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government did not condone torture and said the ruling would not affect its attempts to fight terrorism.

"The majority of their lordships have ruled that evidence should be admitted to SIAC hearings unless those acting for terrorism suspects can establish ... that the evidence was obtained by torture," Clarke said.

The Law Lords overthrew an earlier ruling by the Appeal Court in 2004 that secret tribunals hearing cases relating to the terrorism suspects could consider evidence that would not be acceptable in a British criminal court trial.

That meant authorities could consider information that might have been extracted using torture in another country, provided British agents were not directly involved.

Clarke said the verdict would have no effect on appeals to SIAC by some of the suspects detained in the wake of the July 7 attacks on London which killed 52 people.

The men are being held prior to being deported on the grounds they pose a threat to national security although they argue they face being tortured in their homelands.

The cases include that of Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada who is accused of being the inspiration for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

The Appeal Court's original decision related to the case of 10 foreigners held without charge by Britain under a now defunct security law which allowed police to detain terrorism suspects if there were "reasonable grounds" to think they were a threat.

The court ruled torture evidence could be considered by SIAC, arguing the September 11 attacks justified such a stance.

Two of the 10 have since left Britain, but the eight suspects remaining challenged the verdict.

- REUTERS