Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

So, here they are, the seven redacted paragraphs from the Binyam Mohamed case. The UK Government are now okay about them being in the public domain because the US has effectively put them in the public domain and, in any event, the courts have now told them that the information must be released. Despite Mr. Milliband’s best efforts to the contrary.

The UK Government is claiming a technical victory in that the “control principle” has been upheld – i.e. where intelligence is shared with the UK by the USA (or indeed any other country) we have to promise not to tell anyone else (unless they say it’s okay first). Cross our hearts and hope to die and all that.

And here are the offending 7 paragraphs from the original court decision:

It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and “disappearing” were played upon.

vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

x) The treatment reported, if 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. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities

Okay, so it’s not exactly genital mutilation (which Mr. Mohamed also alleges took place while he was held by the US in Pakistan) but the court was quite clear that such actions would be likely to have amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The USA are signatories to the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The reference above to 1972 is to the 1972 ruling by the UK government which banned the use of hooding, stress positions and deprivation of food, noise and sleep.

Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve is quoted as saying “Today’s decision is very welcome, but the paragraphs revealed are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to British complicity in torture – much more is to come.”

As Foreign Secretary David Milliband told Parliament: “it’s about our values as a nation. It’s about what we do as well as what we say”. This from the party who promised an ethical foreign policy.

• Torture: Myths & Facts

Yet more developments in the ongoing saga of the “Lockerbie Bomber” Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi are discussed in my Yell.com blog post: Lockerbie release criticised by Justice Committee.

With news of the justice committee’s divided censure of the Justice Secretary and Judicial Watch going to court in the USA to get Lockerbie files from the FBI, it’s well worth a read.

And here’s the link to the Justice Committee Report SP Paper 383: The decision on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

There has been much discussion here and there on the subject of Liberty’s claim that introducing a new Bill of Rights to the UK would be constitutionally awkward.

As the Scotland Act and the Good Friday agreement both have the Human Rights Act 1998 “hard-wired” into them, then introducing a new standard, whether to supplement (Labour) or replace (Conservative) the HRA, would not override the devolved standards.

As the excellent Aidan O’Neill QC points out: “All major claims against the Scottish government for human rights violations have been brought on the basis of the Scotland Act since before the Human Rights Act came into force. Abolishing the Act in Britain would not stop it being used in Scotland.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission warns of the “bizarre situation where there was different set of rights in devolved matters and non-devolved matters, and people in England would have fewer rights than people in the devolved jurisdictions.”

It occurs to me that if Westminster were to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, it would be straightforward enough to amend the Bill of Rights (or whatever you’d call it) to refer to that legislation rather than the HRA. That’s legally no problem at all even without the consent of Holyrood, though I accept that politically such a unilateral act may provoke some measure of controversy.

Furthermore – there are very many situations in life in which the rights in Scotland are different to those in England and Wales. That’s part of grown-up devolution / federalism – not “bizarre” at all.

Fiona Murphy of the Committee on the Administration of Justice is quoted as saying “There is a huge backlash against a bill of rights in Scotland.” Really? I can’t say I’d noticed. Although Kenny MacAskill did take a pop at the Magna Carter for being too English.

It also seems to me that most people don’t have a problem with the rights themselves, just with some of the things that some sections of the popular media reprt under the heading of human rights. And with the fact that bad people (or people we’re pretty sure are bad) get to have rights as well.

Perhaps the new Bill of Rights will only apply to nice people (and their pets) and then everyone will be happy. Except bad people. Who have no right to be happy anyway.

The logo used in this post is that of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

A new campaign to promote Consumer Focus Scotland‘s series of specialist consumer guides has been launched. The guides provide detailed information and advice on a range of issues important to consumers in Scotland, and include my very own “A-Z of Scots Education Law” now in its 3rd edition and available in all good bookshops at the bargain price of £6.99!

The promotion involves contacting key organisations and individuals and undertaking targeted advertising to raise awareness of the guides, what they offer to consumers and how they can be accessed.

According to the BBC News website, East Renfrewshire Council have decided not to appeal against Lord Uist’s recent decision which ruled their admissions policy to St. Ninian’s (and as a result their consultation exercise to alter the school’s catchment area) unlawful.

… because they would obviously lose.

Absolvitor is shocked, suprised and saddened to read of “bunfights”, “skulduggery” and “ambition, jealousy and outrage” at the Supreme Court – all over who would be the new Justice at the country’s highest court.

According to Frances Gibb at The Times (and picked up by Charon QC) all is not as it seems in the appointment of the Supreme Court’s No. 12. Specifically – the circumstances in which Jonathan “brain the size of a planet” Sumption QC was first of all seen as a shoo-in for the job and, then … not so much.

In the words of Steve H, posting a comment on Gibb’s article online: “Let us have excellence at the top, not rewards for time serving at the upper staff college level.”

Just a brief note to say thanks very much to Professor Lorne Crerar and Rod McKenzie, both of Harper Macleod who, together with Bill Dunlop (another Scot) formed the independent ERC appeal committee which downgraded Lee Byrne’s two match ban to a 5,000 Euro fine – leaving him free to face England on Saturday.

If I’d known Lee Byrne was in Glasgow today, I’d have offered my services to assist. I don’t known anything about sports law, but I do make a nice cup of tea, and Lee used to play his rugby in Bridgend, same as cousin Gareth – so we’d have had stuff to talk about too!

Bring it on!

According to UPI, a Scottish teen who threatened his granny’s parrot was ordered by an Edinburgh Sheriff to buy her some chocolates by way of apology.

Stefan McKinsley, 19, pled guilty to breach of the peace on Monday 1 February 2010. His gran had called police in the early hours of Saturday morning with a complaint that her grandson was drunk and was hitting the parrot’s cage.

The teen threatened the bird with violence if it did not quiet down and allow him to sleep, and was not placated even after his grandmother placed a cloth over the parrot’s cage.

The precise wording of the apology is not recorded, but perhaps it went something like this?

If you don’t stop squawkin’ you’ll be no more! You will cease to be! You’ll expire and go to meet your maker! You’ll be a stiff! Bereft of life, restin’ in peace! You’ll be pushing up the daisies! your metabolic processes will be ‘istory! You’ll be off the twig! You’ll kick the bucket, you’ll shuffle off your mortal coil, run down the curtain and join the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! YOU WILL BE AN EX-PARROT!!