DOS Memo concerning a UK court proceeding on the application by the family of Brittish national detained at Guantanamo. The court was asked to exercise jurisdiction over the detainee, as a brittish citizen, have him released from U.S. custody and returned to Brittan. The Brittish court ruled that "rights under the HRA and ECHR did not extend beyond UK or the territories of the parties to them i.e. not Guantanamo Bay."
03/18/02. 15:11 PAX
r0-11 002
UNCLASSIFTED
UNCLASSWD3D
RELEASED IN PART B6
UK DETAINERS AT GUANTANAMO SAY: APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Mr Justice Richards heard an application •on Fri-day, 15 March in the High Court for permission for a judicial review of the Foreign and Home Secretaries' handling of the detention of IBB6
linBGuantanamo Bay. The hearing began with a request for adjournment so the case could be considered -alongside -simika-r-appl-ications to be made by lawyers on behalf of the othernUK detainees. Mr Justice Richards refused this on the group that this should have been considered by the Claimant's Counsel beforehand and that the cases should be heard on their individual not collective merit.
Judgement
On the IB
tacti:se, after a long day (mostly taken up by the
Claimant's s.
ssion), Mr Justice Richards ruled that ;
-To'the extent that the court had jurisdiction at all the issue was non-justiciable ie one of -policy for the Government and not one for the courts. He judged against an attempt, as he put it, to blur domestic and international law and give rights to individuals which only States could exercise.
Claimant's Case
The bones of Lhe Claimant's case were that ;
had been wrongly denied PoW status and that HMG
alfa. e to achieve recognition of that status under
Article 45 of the Geneva Convention.
Bhad been wrongly interrogated by the Security
Service in violation of international law
- I Chad been wrongly denied legal access and that time naa not aken the necessary steps to correct this
-the UK had duty to protest at the physical circumstances in which [ was being held
-
HMG should not work further with the US authorities until the latter had given an undertaking not to seek the death penalty.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVIEW AUTHORITY: WILLIAM E LANDFAIR UNCLASSIFIED DATE/CASE ID: 16 NOV 2004 200303827
UNCLASSIFIED0DOS-000668
• 6 03/18/02 15:12 FAX
.0003
UtifeLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
The Claimant's Counsel focussed on the first three of the above
and the activity and in-activity of HMG and its representatives.
By linkingBctrcumstances land-the work -of members -of
the FCO an -368UYTt-g-Yirvice, Counsel sought to argue the
relevance of domestic law. Similarly, Counsel also sought to
suggest that HMG had a duty of care under domestic law to fulfil
individual's rights provided under international law.
Defendant's Case
In reply, HAG Counsel'argued Lhat the conduct of the UK's
international relations was not justiciable in the UK courts.
Specifically, Counsel argued that ;
•
HMG had no consular authority in Guantanamo Bay under the
UK/US bilateral Consular Convention given that Camp X--Ray.
fell outside a consular district listed in the Convention
and the US had made it clear that it would not agree to its
subsequent inclusion
•
it was entirely legitimate to ask questions of.tirema7_1 to fulfil the states responsibility to protect na security
1 71--rights under the HRA and ECHR did not extend
eyon ' eB
-.1
or the territories of the parties to them ie
not Guantanamo Bay.
Mt Justice Richards•was•very•clear in -his . judgement. His 'ruling,
and advice that that the other detainees' applications be lodged
and handled in the normal way, gave a clear signal of their fate
(and of any appeal, a request for which was not made at the time). But for publicity:reasons if nothing else, We expect the appeal and applications to be made. They are unlikely to be heard before Easter.
-2-
UNCIASSUIED
0
DOS-000669
UNCLASSIFIED