Here it is. I think it’s a good judgment, and I’m glad I was cautious last night about joining the chorus of outrage: it does not seem obvious to me that justice requires the 25-line summary of evidence the judges have referred to be made public regardless of American concerns about secrecy. Binyam Mohamed I think has the disclosure he needs for the purposes of his habeas corpus application and to enable him to sue the British government for its alleged role in his treatment; and the Attorney General is considering prosecutions on the basis of the secret evidence. Had publication been necessary to ensure a fair trial I might have taken a different stance, but in these circumstances publication would be made simply for its own sake – I’m not sure it’s right for a British court to decide to do that rather than leave it to the Obama administration and the American courts to decide.
However: this puts a lot of pressure on Baroness Scotland, who so far has managed to avoid the troubles that dogged her predecessor and radical reform of her role. I think a decision not to commence prosecutions would cause her a great deal of difficulty, and call the role of the Attorney into question yet again.
Thanks to Liadnan for pointing me to the judgment.
Head of Legal – you are right about the situation of the Attorney-General. It is interesting how they created the new Supreme Court (thread below) because of perceived lack of independence from Parliament and yet the role of Attorney is escaping reform despite perceptions of lack of independence from the executive.
It seems that Binyam Mohamed’s solicitors are claiming that the factual basis on which the Admin Court made its latest ruling is incorrect in the light of statements Miliband has now made.
The Daily Mail carried this – 6th February:
Can someone please tell me why this case is even in our courts? The man is in a foreign country, he is not British he was arrested in a foreign country so why are we even bothered?
Anonymous, try reading the judgement – say, para 4.