UK military
faces judge-led inquiry into detentions and interrogations after appeal court
rules in favour of 140 Iraqis
 |
British troops round up suspected Ba'ath party activists in Basra,
south-eastern Iraq in 2003. Photograph: MoD/AP |
More than
140 Iraqis who were imprisoned by British troops following the 2003 invasion
have won a court of appeal battle for a new inquiry into their allegations that
they suffered serious mistreatment.
Lawyers for
the men successfully argued that a Ministry of Defence investigation now under
way was substantially compromised because some of its investigators served with
a military police unit responsible for their detention.
The
decision could pave the way for a full public inquiry into the British
military's detention and interrogation practices in south-eastern Iraq during
the five years that troops were based there.
A previous
inquiry into one detention operation that led to several men being tortured and
one, Baha Mousa, dying after suffering 93 separate injuries, concluded there
was "more than a hint" that mistreatment of detainees was more
widespread among British army units in Iraq.
The MoD has
accepted that the Iraqis who brought the appeal – most of whom were civilians –
have an arguable claim that they were tortured or suffered other forms of
inhumane treatment, and that this may have been in breach of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
The court
ruled that the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, must now find a way of
meeting the government's obligations under the convention, which demands an
impartial investigation of any systemic aspects of abuse.
An MoD
spokesman said: "We note that the court of appeal has not ordered a public
inquiry but has asked the defence secretary to reconsider how to meet the
investigative obligations. We will examine the judgment very carefully and
consider next steps." The MoD has until the end of the month to lodge an
appeal with the supreme court.
The Iraqi
men's solicitors, led by Phil Shiner, a Birmingham-based human rights lawyer,
documented more than 60 allegations of detainees being hooded, 11 of electric
shocks, more than 120 of sound deprivation through the use of earmuffs, more
than 50 of sleep deprivation, 160 of sight deprivation – including 117 using
blackened goggles – more than 130 of the use of stress positions, 39 of
enforced nakedness and 18 that detainees were kept awake by pornographic DVDs
played on laptops.
Many of the
allegations centre on a secretive army Intelligence Corps interrogation centre
known as the Joint Forward Interrogation Team (JFIT), where suspected
insurgents or men thought to be loyal to Saddam Hussein's deposed regime were
taken for questioning. Other allegations relate to detention facilities used by
other military formations.
In March
last year, in the face of a legal challenge that threatened to force the MoD to
mount a major public inquiry, it established a group of investigators known as
the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT). The group, which is currently around
80 strong, is investigating a number of unexplained deaths in British military
custody, as well as the torture allegations.
Around half
are retired former civilian detectives, led by former head of Staffordshire CID
Geoff White. The other half, however, are members of the Royal Military police,
including members of a unit called the Provost Branch, which had been involved
in detaining prisoners in Iraq.
The court
said this meant that "Provost Branch members are investigating allegations
which necessarily include the possibility of culpable acts or omissions on the
part of Provost Branch members". Lord Justice Maurice Kay, the
vice-president of the court of appeal's civil division, sitting with Lord
Justice Sullivan and Lord Justice Pitchford ruled that as a result "the
practical independence of IHAT is, at least as a matter of reasonable
perception, substantially compromised".
Furthermore,
IHAT answers to a panel that is headed by a senior MoD civil servant and
includes individuals responsible for army discipline, and which is itself
compromised, according to the court. "It comprises representatives of the
three bodies – the Ministry of Defence, the army chain of command and the
Provost Branch – which would be vulnerable to criticism if the case on systemic
abuse is established."
Defence
officials say the judgment has thrown into doubt the entire future of the
military police, and that any future investigation into any allegation of abuse
by British troops – in Afghanistan or elsewhere – will need to be carried out
by another body.
The MoD is
considering whether it can respond to the appeal court's judgment by
reconstituting IHAT without any military police members.
However, if
the future of the Royal Military Police, and the provost branches of all three
of the armed forces were at stake, then it would appeal.
Shiner
insisted that the only proper response would be a judicial inquiry into the
UK's detention policy in south-east Iraq. "It is something we have been
calling for since 2004," he said. "The MoD has deployed every dirty
trick in the book to prevent accountability for the hundreds of torture and
unlawful killings cases of Iraqi civilians. Now it has nowhere to hide."
Redress, a
London-based NGO which helps victims of torture worldwide, was one of the
interveners in the case and said the government would now have to decide how to
comply with the need for an inquiry "which is independent, effective and
reasonably prompt".
In a
reference to the government's plans to introduce legislation that would result
in evidence of the state's involvement in torture being heard by the courts
only when sitting in secret, Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said:
"Yet again victims of torture look to our open and independent court
system for answers and hope that others won't have to suffer in the future. British
courts are admired the world over. The government should be proud of this and
wary of doing anything that makes justice less transparent in national security
cases."
Another
public inquiry, which has still to get under way, is to look at allegations
that up to 20 Iraqis were unlawfully killed or mistreated during one night in a
detention facility in May 2004 – an allegation that the MoD denies.
Lead
claimant
Ali Zaki
Mousa, 31, a labourer from Basra, was the lead claimant on whose behalf the
appeal court case was brought. According to his statement to the courts, he and
his family were woken at 2am on 24 November 2006 by an explosion that blew his
front door open.
The
soldiers threw smoke grenades into the house – they later demanded the return
of the canisters, and swapped them for items taken in the raid – and ordered
Zaki to put his baby daughter down. "As soon as I laid my daughter down on
the bed the soldier with a moustache kicked me really hard in the
genitals."
He says one
Arabic-speaking British interrogator, a thin man in his late 40s who called
himself Colonel Mark – but was know as "the devil" – said they had
detained his family, he was to be raped, and all would be killed and thrown in
the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
After a
medical examination he says he was taken to another detention centre, where he
would spend long periods blindfolded or being run around an obstacle course by
soldiers. At night, soldiers would play DVDs on laptop computers near his cell
and bang on his door.
Zaki says
he would be interrogated twice a day for a number of weeks. A year later an
officer freed him saying he was no longer considered a threat. Four
years later, he says: "I still feel broken."
After
Tuesday's judgment he says his view of British society is changing. "We
can see that there are the actions of the British soldiers and that is one
thing; then there is British society and that is something else. It has
restored confidence in the British people, he said."
