Lawyers for Guantanamo six contest secret evidence plan

Binyam Mohamed has been involved in a lengthy legal battle

Six former Guantanamo detainees are appealing against a ruling that secret evidence can be used by the government to defend their claim for damages.

The UK citizens and residents are suing intelligence agencies and ministers for alleged complicity in their abuse.

Dinah Rose QC, representing five of the six, told the Court of Appeal the "closed material procedure" was never intended for use in civil actions.

The government denies the claims made in the case at the High Court.

The men - Binyam Mohamed, Bisher Al Rawi, Jamil El Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes and Martin Mubanga - claim they were mistreated in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere.

They were held on suspicion of terrorism but deny any involvement.

'Fundamental change'

The Appeal Court decision will be made by Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Sullivan.

The men say they suffered torture and inhuman and degrading treatment while in custody.

They allege MI5 and MI6 aided and abetted their unlawful imprisonment and extraordinary rendition to various locations around the world.

Mr Justice Silber ruled in the High Court in November that there was no reason why the court could not allow the closed material procedure in the civil case.

It would mean information could be withheld from the claimants' lawyers if the government felt releasing it would damage national security, international relations, or the detection and prevention of crime.

Instead, the information would be released to specially vetted barristers with security clearance.

This is incompatible with the basic concepts of the civil trial Dinah Rose QC

Ms Rose told three of Britain's most senior judges at the Court of Appeal that no court had the power to allow secret evidence by the government in a damages claim.

She said it would represent a "fundamental change" in law which had "constitutional implications" and could only be sanctioned by clear new legislation.

"One of the great dangers of the special advocate system is that in some circumstances it serves as a fig leaf for fundamental unfairness," she said.

"The hearing looks and sounds like a normal trial but it is not a trial at all, it is something completely different."

'Open trial'

She said: "This is incompatible with the basic concepts of the civil trial."

Human rights groups Justice and Liberty and a number of media organisations, including the BBC, the Times, the Guardian, the Sunday Times, and the Observer, are also contesting the plan.

They say the secrecy proposals breach the right to a fair and open trial.

Last month, the Court of Appeal rejected a separate plea by Foreign Secretary David Miliband for six paragraphs of a judgment on a case involving Binyam Mohamed to be kept secret.