Is torture OK for UK courts?

As the full implications of last week's ruling on foreign terrorist suspects held in England start to sink in, questions are being asked about what it means for evidence obtained through torture.

Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled foreign terrorism suspects held without charge at Belmarsh Prison should not be released.

The men claimed their detention may rely on evidence extracted during torture of al-Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

But the court said that as long as the UK neither supports nor participates in torture, ministers cannot ignore potentially vital evidence. So is information extracted during torture valid in UK courts?

What the law says

British law bans torture. The UK is one of 127 signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

But the Court of Appeal judgement said ministers had to be sensible about this law in light of current events.

Shafiq Rasul and Ruhal Ahmed allege abuse at Guantanamo

"I am quite unable to see that any such principle prohibits the [home secretary] from relying on evidence which has been obtained through torture by agencies of other states," said Lord Justice Laws.

"If the Secretary of State is bound to dismiss [evidence from torture abroad] his duty becomes extremely problematic. He may be presented with information of great potential importance, where there is, let us say, a suspicion as to the means by which, in another jurisdiction, it has been obtained? What is he to do?"

International fears

The background to this ruling is the question mark over how the US is conducting its campaign against its enemies.

The US-run Guantanamo Bay detention camp for terrorism suspects, is as controversial today as when the first plane-load of suspects landed almost three years ago.

Three of five recently British men released without charge from the camp say they were tortured there. One said he admitted knowing Osama Bin Laden just to stop his interrogators.

Human rights groups claim the US secret services are sending terrorism suspects to friendly Middle East regimes to be interrogated in a harsh manner.

Accepting torture

Home Secretary David Blunkett says his position is clear.

Torture is the microcosm of terrorism - it's one individual terrorising another individual Prof Paul Wilkinson

"We unreservedly condemn the use of torture. However, it would be irresponsible not to take appropriate account of any information which could help protect national security and public safety."

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the official watchdog on terror laws, recently says he has sympathy with ministers. Should they ignore reports of a bomb plot, revealed during torture abroad, out of fear of encouraging the torturer - or act upon it, believing it may save lives?

The Telegraph newspaper supports this position. "Facts from torture, are still facts," it declares.

'Evidence unreliable'

But Ellie Smith, a lawyer with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, says history shows torture never reveals facts.

"It comes down the quality of proof," she says. "If you have evidence coming out of Guantanamo, there is no way you can establish the root of what is being said. "If you cannot cross-examine people, you cannot test their credibility. Torture evidence in inherently unreliable."

And Professor Paul Wilkinson, terrorism expert at the University of St Andrews, fears the West may begin to lose the "war of ideas" and provide a propaganda weapon to extremists.

"Torture is the microcosm of terrorism. It's one individual terrorising another individual," he says.

"Once you have done that, you have sacrificed the moral high ground - and the terrorists are then winning without having fired a single shot."