A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68

Court: House of Lords

Facts: In the aftermath of 9/11, several individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism were detained indefinitely in HMP Belmarsh under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The UK government used information obtained from US officials, who had gathered it through torture of terrorist suspects abroad, as part of the evidence presented before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to justify the detentions. The detainees appealed, arguing that the use of evidence obtained through torture violated fundamental principles of justice and human rights.

Issue: Whether evidence obtained through torture by foreign agents was admissible in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

Held: The House of Lords ruled that evidence obtained, or likely obtained, through torture by a foreign state’s agents was inadmissible in SIAC proceedings. The court emphasized that such evidence was incompatible with the UK's obligations under international law, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights, and could not be relied upon in legal proceedings.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Bingham stated: “The principles of the common law, standing alone, have long been clear. The English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years, and that abhorrence is now shared by over 140 nations who are parties to the Torture Convention. The law of nations has condemned it with steadily increasing severity. And the rejection of its use has been a basic principle of English law for generations” [11].

💡 LevelupLaw: the absolute prohibition of torture in international and domestic law, affirming that evidence obtained through torture cannot be used to justify state actions, even in the context of national security and counter-terrorism efforts.