By Matthew Champion.

The government has lost an appeal against a high court ruling ordering the disclosure of information that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee claims proves UK complicity in his torture.

Three of the most senior judges in the country ruled the seven-paragraph CIA summary of the treatment of Binyam Mohamed should be published, overruling an appeal from foreign secretary David Miliband that its disclosure would threaten intelligence cooperation with the US and in turn national security.

But in one of the first-ever instances of courts ignoring the government's claims over national security Igor Judge, the lord chief justice; Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls; and Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench; said the "compelling" evidence went to the centre of the "fundamental importance [of] democratic accountability and ultimately the rule of law itself".

They said the material helped vindicate Mr Mohamed's assertion that UK authorities had been "involved in and facilitated the ill treatment and torture to which he was subjected while under the control of USA authorities".

The 31-year-old was released from Guantanamo on February 23rd 2009 after spending four and a half years at the Cuban-based US detention camp.

Mr Mohamed, who was born in Ethiopia and moved to London seeking political asylum in 1994, was arrested on a visa violation while travelling in Pakistan and handed over to US forces.

In July 2002 he was rendered to Morocco, where he spent the next 18 months undergoing what lawyers from legal charity Reprieve describe as "medieval" torture.

He said his lowest point came, however, when US torturers asked him about his life in London; information that could only have been provided by the British intelligence services.

The seven paragraphs the Foreign Office said it was publishing on its website relate to his treatment up until May 17th 2002 including sleep deprivation, threats and inducements and being shackled during interrogations. The three judges said the treatment amounted to "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment".

"In principle a real risk of serious damage to national security, of whatever degree, should not automatically trump a public interest in open justice which may concern a degree of facilitation by UK officials of interrogation using unlawful techniques which may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," they said.

In a statement Mr Miliband said he accepted the ruling and insisted the court of appeal had, in principle, supported the basis of his appeal.

The foreign secretary argued that the court had only felt comfortable to reject his appeal on national security grounds due to the fact that the seven paragraphs had already been put into the public domain during a recent US court case involving another Guantanamo detainee.

"At the heart of this case was the principle that if a country shares intelligence with another, that country must agree before its intelligence is released," Mr Miliband wrote.

"This 'control principle' is essential to the intelligence relationship between Britain and the US. The government fought the case to preserve this principle, and today's judgment upholds it."

He went on to say that the judges had "agreed that the control principle is integral to intelligence sharing".

"The court has today ordered the publication of the seven paragraphs because in its view their substance had been put into the public domain by a decision of a US court in another case," Mr Miliband, who will make a statement to the House of Commons on the issue at 12:30 GMT today, added.

In January 2004 Mr Mohamed was transferred to a secret CIA prison near Kabul and subjected to extremely loud music 24 hours a day.

"It was pitch black, no lights on in the rooms for most of the time," he said of the ordeal.

"They hung me up for two days. My legs had swollen. My wrists and hands had gone numb. There was loud music, Slim Shady [by Eminem] and Dr Dre for 20 days. Then they changed the sounds to horrible ghost laughter and Halloween sounds. At one point, I was chained to the rails for a fortnight. The CIA worked on people, including me, day and night. Plenty lost their minds. I could hear people knocking their heads against the walls and the doors, screaming their heads off."

Mr Mohamed, who was taken to Guantanamo Bay in September 2004, insists he is "not asking for vengeance".

"Only that the truth should be made known," he said, "so that nobody in the future should have to endure what I have endured."

Shami Chakrabarti, the group's director, said: "It has been clear for over a year that the Foreign Office has been more concerned with saving face than exposing torture. These embarrassing paragraphs reveal nothing of use to terrorists but they do show something of the UK government's complicity with the most shameful part of the war on terror.

"The government has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover up kidnap and torture. A full public inquiry is now inescapable."

 

The Foreign Secretary said the Government accepts the decision of the Court of Appeal and has published the seven paragraphs at issue in the case of Binyam Mohamed.

The following seven paragraphs have been redacted: 

[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]