Prohibition of Torture in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and another (Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and another intervening); Mitchell v Al-Dali;
    • House of Lords
    • 14 June 2006

    But the same approach cannot be adopted in international law, which is based upon the common consent of nations. It is not for a national court to "develop" international law by unilaterally adopting a version of that law which, however desirable, forward-looking and reflective of values it may be, is simply not accepted by other states. (See Al-Adsani 34 EHRR 273, 297, para O-II9 in the concurring opinion of judges Pellonpää and Bratza).

  • JB(Torture and III treatment - Article 3)
    • Immigration Appeals Tribunal
    • 24 February 2003

    The Adjudicator has given no indication about the areas in which he found the appellant to be vague. To describe a person's evidence as vague and use that as a ground for disbelief is, in our view, quite unsatisfactory unless of course the areas of lack of detail, which cause concern, are clearly spelt out.

  • A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2)
    • House of Lords
    • 08 December 2005

    It is common ground in these proceedings that the international prohibition of the use of torture enjoys the enhanced status of a jus cogens or peremptory norm of general international law. In R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147, 197-199, the jus cogens nature of the international crime of torture, the subject of universal jurisdiction, was recognised.

    There is reason to regard it as a duty of states, save perhaps in limited and exceptional circumstances, as where immediately necessary to protect a person from unlawful violence or property from destruction, to reject the fruits of torture inflicted in breach of international law. As McNally JA put it in S v Nkomo 1989 (3) ZLR 117, 131:

    The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice. Effect must be given to the European Convention, which itself takes account of the all but universal consensus embodied in the Torture Convention.

  • Patrick Reyes v The Queen
    • Privy Council
    • 11 March 2002

    A generous and purposive interpretation is to be given to constitutional provisions protecting human rights. The court has no licence to read its own predilections and moral values into the constitution, but it is required to consider the substance of the fundamental right at issue and ensure contemporary protection of that right in the light of evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society (see Trop v Dulles, above, at 101).

  • R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 1)
    • House of Lords
    • 25 November 1998

    But I agree with the Divisional Court that this argument is bad. It involves a misunderstanding of section 2 of the Extradition Act. Section 2(1)(a) refers to conduct which would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom now. It does not refer to conduct which would have constituted an offence then.

See all results
  • Human Rights Act 1998
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1998
    ......insurrection. Article 3 . Prohibition of torture . Prohibition of torture. . No one shall be subjected to ......
  • The Export Control Order 2008
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2008
    ...... technical assistance, which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3 . . It ... B goods (“the relevant goods”) only contravenes the prohibition in this article if paragraph (5) or (6) applies. . (5) This paragraph ......
  • Criminal Justice Act 1988
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1988
    ...... has resulted in a wrongful conviction; to create an offence of torture and an offence of having an article with a blade or point in a public .... In Schedule 2, paragraph. 11. . . . 1985 c. 37. . Prohibition......
  • The Pitcairn Constitution Order 2010
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2010
    ......SCH-2.5 . . 5. Prohibition of torture . No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT