Prohibition of Torture in UK Law
-
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;
“
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).
-
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2)
“
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.
-
JB(Torture and III treatment - Article 3)
“
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.
-
Patrick Reyes v The Queen
“
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)
“
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.
-
Human Rights Act 1998
....... No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . (1) No one shall be ......
-
The Pitcairn Constitution Order 2010
......SCH-2.5 . . 5. Prohibition of torture . No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or ......
-
The Export Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017
...... technical assistance, which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment2. The ... who is concerned in an activity prohibited by Article 4a(1) (prohibition of transit), 4b (prohibition of brokering services), 4c (prohibition of ......
-
The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008
......) Order 1995 (NI 18) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and . (b) (b) is causing, or is likely to cause, ...33) . SCH-1.22 . . 22. An offence under section 134 (torture). The Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31) The Aviation and ......
-
‘Their Way of Punishing’ Corporal Punishment by Indigenous Peoples and the Prohibition of Torture
Both the right of indigenous peoples to cultural integrity and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments and punishments are vital features of the character of mo...
- Challenges to the Absolute Nature of the Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment
-
Rotten Fruit: State Solicitation, Acceptance, and Use of Information Obtained through Torture by Another State
The author argues that a State violates international law when it transmits questions for use in the interrogation of an individual by another State, or informally uses for its own national securit.........The sources of law relied upon include: the comprehensive, absolute, and non-derogable prohibition of torture under treaty and customary international law; rules ascribing individual criminal responsibility for complicity or participation in acts ......
-
The Committee against Torture: One Step Forward, One Step Back
The Committee against Torture, the supervisory body of the UN Convention against Torture, performs functions with respect to the implementation of anti-torture measures similar to the functions per......... article appraises the Convention against Torture, the role of its Committee, as well as their contribution to the international prohibition of torture and other cruel treatment. Introduction The aim of the Convention against Torture' is to strengthen the existing prohibition ......
-
Odah et al. v United States et al., United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 11 March 2003
...... law of nations" (in that case the customary international law prohibition of torture). Professor Koh of Yale University has described the decision ......
-
Public And Regulatory Law Group Alert - March 2013
...... to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to a private ......
-
Brexit: Options For And Impact Of The Possible Alternatives To EU Membership
...... Rights has found that the UK legislation violates article 3, Prohibition of Torture, of the First protocol on the ECHR. The Council of Europe's ......
-
Brexit: Options for and Impact of the Possible Alternatives to EU Membership
The UK is holding a referendum on 23 June 2016 to decide whether or not to remain a member of the European Union. There seems to be a disconnect between some aspects of public discourse on the vote.........violates article 3, Prohibition of Torture, of the First protocol on the ECHR. The Council of Europe’s ......