London, February 26: Britain’s secret services faced criticism from a senior judge over their “dubious record” Friday amid allegations they colluded in the torture of an ex Guantanamo Bay inmate.
The comments from Lord David Neuberger, head of the civil justice system in England and Wales, were initially published in a draft judgment earlier this month in the case of Binyam Mohamed.
But they were then removed from the ruling following a complaint from Jonathan Sumption, one of Britain’s top lawyers, who was representing the government.
They have now been made public in what Ivor Judge, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, said was “the interests of open justice”.
Neuberger’s suppressed comments came in a ruling ordering the release of information about the case of Ethiopian-born Mohamed, who was detained for nearly seven years, including more than four at Guantanamo.
Mohamed claims he was “tortured in medieval ways” and alleges British security service MI5 colluded with US agents in his abuse in Pakistan.
Reprieve, the campaign group which represents Mohamed, said the case again underlined the need for a public inquiry into allegations that British secret agents were linked to torture.
Neuberger said the British security services had denied knowledge of any ill-treatment of US detainees.
“Yet, in this case, that does not seem to have been true: as the evidence showed, some security services officials appear to have a dubious record relating to actual involvement — and frankness about any such involvement — with the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed when he was held at the behest of US officials,” said the judge.
Neuberger added there were questions over whether statements about alleged mistreatment could be relied upon.
“Not only is there some reason for distrusting such a statement, given that it is based on security services advice and information, because of previous, albeit general, assurances in 2005, but also the security services have an interest in the suppression of such information,” he said.
He removed a reference to the Foreign Office made in an earlier version, saying it was “not really justified”.
Judge, the lord chief justice, said although ministers had not interfered to prevent the comments being published, the “most effective way of dispelling any lingering public perception” that this had happened was to allow publication.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he was “deeply disappointed” by the criticism of the security services.
“We totally reject any suggestion that the security services have a systemic problem in respecting human rights,” he said.
“We wholly reject too that they have any interest in suppressing or withholding information from ministers or the courts.”
—Agencies