Justice

[AtW]

Libyan told he cannot pursue rendition claim in case it harms UK interests

"A prominent Libyan dissident cannot pursue his "well-founded" claim that he was unlawfully abducted in a joint MI6-CIA operation, and later tortured, because to do so would damage Britain's relations with the US, a high court judge ruled on Friday.

The judge ruled that Abdel Hakim Belhaj could not sue MI6 and the former foreign secretary Jack Straw, even though he admitted that parliamentary oversight and police investigations were "not adequate substitutes" for a decision by a court of law.

Though the ruling, by Mr Justice Simon, dismissed Belhaj's case, it directly challenged the British government's argument that the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) was the proper body to investigate MI6 operations involving the rendition, detention, and alleged abuse of terror suspects.

Simon said he ruled against Belhaj because American, as well as British, officials were involved in the operation – the rendition of Belhaj and his pregnant wife to Tripoli in 2004 – which Belhaj wanted a British court to declare unlawful.

He concluded that to pursue the case might damage Britain's national interest – a reference to the government's claims that it would harm its relations with the US."

Source: Libyan told he cannot pursue rendition claim in case it harms UK interests | World news | theguardian.com

WTF is going on?!?!?!

[craig1]

There are a number of reasons a judge can throw out a case even if the plaintiff would normally have won. One is national security. Another is the floodgates argument, e.g. that case recently where an idiot kid injured himself by smacking a water thingy while trying to hit someone else, it was thrown out not because it wasn't a dangerous thing but because it would have unreasonably opened the floodgates to similar cases and made everything a potential law suit if a kid injured himself. There are others but my brain can't think that far back to remember the list...

[AtW]

One is national security.

It's bollox no different to 3rd world scumbag dictators.

Unless there is actual law that says torturing people is ok for national security it should not be ok to stop cases like this, especially when judge acknowledges that there are actual grounds for it - I hope this case goes all the way up to EUoJ

[KentPhilip]

It's bollox no different to 3rd world scumbag dictators.

Correct.
The public image that the UK is a land of law and order is just that - an image.

[SueEllen]

It's bollox no different to 3rd world scumbag dictators.

Unless there is actual law that says torturing people is ok for national security it should not be ok to stop cases like this, especially when judge acknowledges that there are actual grounds for it - I hope this case goes all the way up to EUoJ

The UK can argue National Security there and win if they use better reasons than what the paper says.

Papers often do a bad job of summing up judges' reasons in complex cases.

The Human Rights Directive gives countries a leeway on their actions if the reason they do something is for National Security.