British security service badly damaged by torture case

Anna Reitman

Tortured: Binyam Mohamed and opponent David MilibandForeign Secretary David Miliband's failure to win his appeal to conceal British intelligence documents that may reveal the extent to which he and the cabinet were aware of the torture of UK resident Binyam Mohamed has hugely damaged the reputation of MI5.

One of the country's most senior judges ruled that information detailing the treatment in secret prisons of the former Guantanamo Bay prisoner should be disclosed in a decision that campaigners are calling “a major victory for free expression and open justice in the UK”.

Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, found that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct.

The condemnation was drafted shortly before Miliband lost his long legal battle to suppress a seven-paragraph court document showing that MI5 officers were involved in the ill-treatment of Mohamed.

Amid mounting calls for an independent inquiry into the affair, three of the country's most senior judges – Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Lord Neuberger – disclosed evidence of MI5's complicity in Mohamed's torture and unlawful interrogation by the US, over a four year period that left him feeling "dead".

So severe were Neuberger's criticisms of MI5 that the government's leading lawyer in the case, Jonathan Sumption QC, privately wrote to the court asking him to reconsider his draft judgment before it was handed down.

The judges agreed but Sumption's letter, which refers to Neuberger's original comments, was made public after lawyers for Mohamed and media organisations intervened.

They argued that Neuberger had privately agreed with Sumption to remove his fierce criticisms without giving then the chance to contest the move.

In his letter, Sumption warned the judges that the criticism of MI5 would be seen by the public as statements by the court that the agency:

• Did not respect human rights.

• Had not renounced participation in "coercive interrogation" techniques.

• Deliberately misled MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee, who are supposed to scrutinise its work.

• Had a "culture of suppression" in its dealings with Miliband and the court.

Sumption described Neuberger's observations in his draft judgment as "an exceptionally damaging criticism of the good faith of the Security Service as a whole".

The judgment stated: “A real risk of serious damage to national security, of whatever degree, should not automatically trump a public interest in open justice.”

In 2002 Mohamed was transported from Pakistan to Morocco where he was handed over to Moroccan agents that detained and tortured him for 18 months. According to Judge Gladys Kessler, an American jurist on the U.S. District Court of Columbia, Mohamed's body was mutilated, he was forced to hold stress positions, deprived of sleep and food and was summarily transported from one foreign prison to another ending up in Guantanamo Bay. He was released and arrived in the UK almost a year ago.

Freedom of speech campaigner John Kampfner said: “The Foreign Office’s secrecy has only heightened the suspicion that Britain’s security services were complicit in the torture of a UK resident.”

Miliband claims that releasing the information will harm US relations.

An excerpt from one of the paragraphs the Foreign Office attempted to censor states that the reported treatment while in custody, "if it had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972.”