Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris
The European Court of Human Rights, echoing the concerns of the UK's own Court of Appeal, said the preacher would be treated well if returned - but there was one big problem.
In their judgement they said that it doesn't matter what someone has done, modern nations that believe in the rule of law cannot send people back to regimes that torture - and then use that evidence against other suspects.
|
Well, that's not the way I read it. Yes, a UK judge did say yesterday he couldn't be deported because torture-based evidence would be used against him, but the ECHR have already said the same thing. Listen, mate, I'm taking this info from the BBC and they don't get things wrong. It's more than the Director General's jobs worth!
Anyway, m'lud, I refer to my original point that in 2009 the Law Lords ruled that upholding the principle of a fair trial in another jurisdiction “does not require the UK to retain, to the detriment of national security, a terrorist suspect”. If we were not beholden to the ECHR we could have deported him there and then. Furthermore, if the government does manage to get SIAC to change their mind, we'll still have to go back to the ECHR before we can deport him. If Blair hadn't enshrined their rulings in British law we wouldn't have all this hassle!