Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and Another v Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Simon |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12X02603 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 20 December 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 4111 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Hon. Mr Justice Simon
Case No: HQ12X02603
Richard Hermer QC, Ben Jaffey and Maria Roche (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Claimants
Rory Phillips QC, Sam WordsworthQC, Karen Steyn, Peter Skelton and Julian Milford (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 21–24 October 2013
Introduction
In this action the Claimants seek a declaration of illegality and claim damages arising from what they contend was the participation of the seven Defendants in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and illicit removal across state borders to Libya in March 2004. The claim encompasses allegations that they were unlawfully detained and/or mistreated in four foreign states, China, Malaysia, Thailand, and Libya, and on board a US-registered aircraft; and that their detention and mistreatment was carried out by agents of the States concerned.
This is the determination of two preliminary issues, pursuant to an order made on 21 May 2013:
(1) Whether the claims set out in §§89–95, 99(a) and 101 of the particulars of claim should be dismissed under CPR 3.1.(2)(l), on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction and/or the claims are non-justiciable?
(2) In so far as the claim is not dismissed, what are the applicable laws for determining the Claimants' causes of action?
Issue (1) raises issues about the extent and application of state immunity and act of state doctrines. Although issue (2) was argued as a matter of principle, in practice it was an argument about which party should plead the foreign laws that apply.
As I set out in my judgment ordering the hearing of these issues, the First Claimant was a political opponent of the former leader of Libya, Colonel Gaddafi, with whom the British Government had developed friendly relations. As is the nature of international politics, those whose friendship was courted are now regarded with disfavour, and vice versa. Whatever his previous affiliations may have been, the Claimant led the battle for Tripoli in the summer of 2011, ending the war as the Commander of the Tripoli Military Council and is now the leader of a political party in Libya.
Although many of the facts relied on by the Claimants are neither admitted nor denied by the Defendants, unusually, some appear to be supported by documents which have come into the Claimants' hands as a result of the change in political fortunes in Libya.
The factual assertions forming the basis of the claim
In 2003 the First Claimant (a Libyan national) and his wife, the Second Claimant, (a Moroccan national) were living in China. In mid to late February 2004, they wished to come to this country to claim asylum and tried to take a commercial flight from Beijing to London. While they were at the airport they were detained by the Chinese authorities, and removed to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, where they were held for two weeks.
On 1 March 2004 the 3rd Defendant (MI6) sent a fax to the Libyan intelligence services informing them that the Claimants had been detained in Malaysia and identifying the place where they were held.
By 4 March 2004 the US authorities had also become aware of the Claimants' detention, and a plan was formulated to abduct the Claimants and transfer them to Libyan custody. US officials faxed the Libyan authorities stating that they were,
… working energetically to effect the extradition of [the First Claimant] from Malaysia. The Malaysians have promised to co-operate and to arrange for [the First Claimant's] transfer to our custody.
A further fax agreed to a Libyan request that the First Claimant be rendered into their custody.
On 6 March 2004 the US authorities sent two further faxes to the Libyan authorities informing them that the Claimants were due to be placed on a commercial flight from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok, that the abduction and rendition would take place in Bangkok and that they would be placed on a US aircraft for a flight to Libya. The US officials stated that it,
… is vital that one of your officers accompany [the First Claimant] and his wife on our aircraft during this leg of the journey (Bangkok to Libya) in order to provide legal custody of [the Second Claimant].
A more detailed 'Schedule for the Rendition of [the First Claimant] to the Libyan authorities' was faxed later that day: the Claimants would be abducted in Bangkok, flown to Diego Garcia (a British Indian Ocean Territory) for refuelling of the aircraft, and then on to Tripoli.
On 7 March 2004 the First Claimant was informed that he and his wife could only travel to the United Kingdom via Bangkok. The Claimants boarded a commercial flight to Bangkok and, on arrival, were taken off the aeroplane by four Thai officials, before being separated.
The First Claimant was pulled into a van on the runway by two US agents wearing balaclavas. He was strapped face down to a stretcher, handcuffed behind his back, shackled, hooded and taken to a 'black site' operated by US agencies within the airport perimeter. He was then hung from hooks attached to chains, and repeatedly slammed into the wall.
Having been held for about a day, the First Claimant was hooded and strapped back onto a stretcher. His hands were shackled to his feet using a short chain in a painful stress position, and he was carried on the stretcher to an aircraft whilst blindfolded.
The Second Claimant (who was pregnant at the time) had also been forced into a van on the runway. She was blindfolded, had her wrists and lower legs bound and ear defenders put on her. She was then taken to a cell within a building, in which there were two US agents dressed in black wearing balaclavas. She was then chained to the wall by one hand and one leg. Eventually, she was tightly taped to a stretcher making her fear for her baby. Her eyes were taped in such a way that she had severe pain in her right eye. Ear defenders and a hood were placed on her head. She was taken by stretcher to a nearby building where she was poked and punched in the stomach. She was then injected with a sedative, her clothes were changed and she was taped again onto a stretcher and driven to an aircraft.
Both Claimants were loaded on board a Boeing Business Jet owned by a CIA controlled front company with the tail number N313P. The Claimants were strapped to the floor of the aircraft, which flew to Tripoli stopping once to refuel. The First Claimant was chained in a stress position leaving lacerations on his wrists and ankles. He was kicked and beaten. The Second Claimant's temperature became raised during the flight. She was doused with water and her headscarf was forcibly removed. She was forced to use the toilet blindfolded.
Upon arrival in Tripoli, the First Claimant was beaten again. The Second Claimant could no longer feel her baby move and was concerned that he had died. Both Claimants were taken to Tajoura prison, a detention facility operated by the Libyan intelligence services.
In a letter dated 18 March 2004, the Second Defendant wrote to Moussa Koussa, the head of the Libyan External Security Organisation, warmly congratulating him on the successful rendition 1 of the First Claimant.
Most importantly, I congratulate you on the safe arrival of [the First Claimant]. This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over recent years … The intelligence about [the First Claimant] was British. I know I did not pay for the air cargo. But I feel I have the right to deal with you direct on this and am very grateful to you for the help you are giving us.
The Particulars of Claim sets out the ill-treatment which the Claimants allege that they suffered while in Tajoura Prison, as well as the prolonged and severe ill-treatment of the First Claimant, which lasted until 2008. There is an allegation that agents of the 3rd or 4th Defendants saw the First Claimant while he was in prison; and that he told them that he was being beaten and hung by his arms, and showed them his scarred wrists. When he refused to sign a statement in relation to whether a group of Libyans in the UK had sent money to an armed group in Libya, he was told by a Libyan interpreter that the British team were in Libya waiting for this information and was threatened with torture by being placed in a mechanical box with an adjustable ceiling that would restrict his movement. The First Claimant signed the papers. There are further allegations of complicity by agents of the 4th Defendants in interrogations in March and October 2004 and in February 2005. Eventually the First Claimant was
tried summarily and sentenced to death. He was transferred to Abu Salim Prison and kept in isolation for a year, in insanitary conditions and subject to beatings. On 23 March 2010 he was released.The legal basis of the Claim
The Particulars of Claim (§1) seek,
… declarations of illegality and damages arising out of the Defendants' participation in the unlawful abduction, detention and rendition of the Claimants to Tripoli, Libya in March 2004, and the Defendants' subsequent acts and omissions whilst they were unlawfully detained.
The 18 March 2004 letter from the 2nd Defendant is relied on (§50a) to show that,
[The 2nd Defendant] and the UK and intelligence services were co-conspirators in the unlawful rendition of the Claimants. In particular they provided the intelligence that enabled the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
...detainees in Guantanamo Bay in the autumn of 2002”. 25 Next there is the judgment of Simon J in Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB). Before me, there were considerable oral and written submissions as to the status of Belhaj; in particular, Simon J's findings on sect......
-
Yunus Rahmatullah v The Ministry of Defence and Another
...dismissed the plea of state immunity but held that the act of state doctrine operated as a bar to the claims: see Belhaj v Straw [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB). 17 There were cross-appeals against these rulings. In their judgment handed down on 30 October 2014, the Court of Appeal (Lord Dyson MR, L......
-
Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
...on its own facts. These were R (Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 327, [2007] QB 621, Belhaj v Straw [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB), [2014] EWCA Civ 1394, [2017] AC 964, Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB), and Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence ......
-
Lady Christine Brownlie (widow and executrix of the estate of Professor Sir Ian Brownlie CBE QC) v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated (a company incorporated in British Columbia, Canada)
...based as opposed to our combination of common law and statute. vi) Dicey's rule 25(2) was considered by Simon J. in Belhaj v Straw [2013] EWHC 4111 (QB). He summarised the facts of the case at [1] where he said, ‘In this action the Claimants seek a declaration of illegality and claim damag......