This appeal was based on Binyam Mohamed’s request for disclosure by the UK government of documentation and information, so as to assist his defence against charges which he anticipated would be brought against him by the US.Important legal issues arise from the working relationship of UK and US intelligence services and the issue of the confidentiality afforded to them, among them the principles of open justice, non-disclosure and public-interest immunity.

Reports were provided to the UK government by the US government, on the detention and treatment of Binyam Mohamed, under surveillance for suspected terrorist threat. The consideration was the balance between national security and of the openness of the judicial system, both matters being in the public interest. It was held that the issue of confidentiality amongst allied intelligence services was not absolute and that summary reports on the individual in question should form part of the judgement, on the basis that there was no potential risk therein to threaten national security and that it was in the public interest to disclose the intelligence information.

To read this judgment in full, please click here.

The Bill can be viewed here

European Human Rights Law Review E.H.R.L.R. (2010) No.1 Pages 26-46

Examines the utilisation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), as experienced by individuals, non-government organisations and the disposal of communications by the CEDAW Committee. Provides an overview of the Optional Protocol, with reference to areas such as the monitoring of commitments and the inquiry procedure. Comments on the limited use made of the right of communication thus far. Considers issues raised in the communication procedure, summarising the provisions. Discusses the quality of decision-making. Asks whether the Optional Protocol has added any value to the advancement of human rights.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department was entitled to rely on an assurance given by the authorities of Trinidad and Tobago that an individual, whose extradition had been ordered, would immediately be held in a prison that complied with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.3 so that the secretary of state was entitled not to rescind the extradition order.

Full report can be found here

This case is available to read here.