Outstanding.

From the link:

Allowing a criminal court to rely on torture evidence would legitimise the torture of witnesses and suspects pre-trial. Moreover, torture evidence was unreliable, because a person being tortured would say anything to make it stop.

The Court found that torture was widespread in Jordan, as was the use of torture evidence by the Jordanian courts.

The Court also found that, in relation to each of the two terrorist conspiracies charged against Mr Othman, the evidence of his involvement had been obtained by torturing one of his co-defendants.

Strasbourg said that it was highly probable that the "decisive" evidence against the preacher had come from abusing these defendants.

In the absence of any assurance by Jordan that the torture evidence would not be used against Mr Othman, the Court therefore concluded that his deportation to Jordan to be retried would give rise to a flagrant denial of justice in violation of his right to a fair trial

So the basic problem is that Jordan would not give any assurance that evidence obtained by torture would not be used.

Closer scrutiny means that it would make no sense if you are the sort of person would have no qualms about being put personally on trial (and not within the English legal system) on the basis of evidence given by someone in another country who was being tortured. That doesn't work for me - but I have no problem with him being put on trial and having to give an account.

I have to say I agree with Emjay. Due process is what hopefully sets us apart from places like Jordan.

If we allow this to happen it makes us no better than them.... If you are really after a misscarage of justice look towards the USA extraditing a UK citizen for something that isn't even a crime here.

That is a good judgement imo.

British Judges always seem to make stupid decisions in these cases.

You cannot send him back to Jordan to stand trial when the evidence used against him is from torture. Whats the point. You might as well shoot him here and save everyone the bother.

Why the British Judges think it is acceptable to send him their in the first place is what is wrong.

Also a diplomatic agreement is not in my own opinion a suitable safety guarantee.

Granted he is not a nice guy it seems, but descending to torture, bodged justice or condoning it makes us not far off what we accuse him of being.

British Justice is not what it once was.

bugger being politically correct, this guy is heavily involved in international terrorist activites encouraging the killing of innocent civilians

he contributes nothing to Britain at all and all he and his family do is cost us a fortune, deport him and sod the European Court of Human rights, whatever happens to him happens

If the ECHR don't want him to go to Jordan then maybe we should stick him and his family on the next ferry out of Hull and they can look after this poor, downtrodden mite.

Or better still;


Bullets are a lot cheaper than an overnight crossing.

Send him on a Mediterranean cruise

Then he can be tried for that. Nobody is saying he can't and should not be tried for that.

What does that have to do with the appropriateness of relying upon evidence obtained by torture? If not allowing evidence obtained by torture is your idea of 'politically correct' that might be over-egging the pudding.

The ECHR don't want him to be tried on the basis of evidence obtained by torture. If Jordan say they won't be using evidence obtained by torture he is on the next boat.

I'm not sure there is really anything in that decision for anyone to get worked up about.

I appreciate he appears to be what passes for a human being these days, but there comes a point where morals should take precedent.

He doesn't like us, he actively encourages the indiscriminate killing of indiginous British people and as such, regardless of this case, he should be shipped off to the first unpleasant place that wants him.

Freedom of travel is a human right too. Maybe we could drop him off in the middle of the North Sea and then he can decide whether he wants to swim back to this horrid country full of infidels or to Belgium where his human rights can be protected by the arseclarts that run the ECHR.

Sorry but I think Emjay is on the money here.

i'm sorry but this guy wouldn't think twice about killing any of us or our families or supporting organisations that would do and would rejoice were any of us to meet our demise in such an unfortunate way

i frankly couldn't care less about folk like that and I want them out of our country, if Jordan have tortured him, then frankly good for them, sorry if that's not politically correct but when dealing with dangerous lunatics like him doing it the 'right way' just doesn't work

Nice to see you in agreement for once, Brewster.

Who decides the morals? My moral code has no problem with the idea of him just disappearing one night, never to be seen again. I could think of some other names to add to the list as well.

The case you're referring to Sam?

Do you honestly believe that what the ECHR has done here is based on morality? Do you think the lawyer that has won this case will go home to his big, tax-payer funded mansion and feel a warm glow that he has done the right thing?

What has happened is some clever dick laywer(s) have seen a way of putting in yet another big bill to the EU whilst getting many slaps on the back from all the other honourable defenders of justice hovering around that trough for sticking two fingers up to the UK Govt.

If anyone thinks this case was anything more than a lawyer making a name for himself and earning a new wing to the mansion they are very misguided.

If we are all agreed that he is a very bad man indeed, then why not try him in a UK court on charges of being very bad. If we don't have enough evidence and the only place that does, has based this on things said by someone whose testicles are on fire, then I doubt it's very reliable. You really wouldn't believe the appalling things I'd admit to if I was even threatened with being tortured.
All this judgement says is that if it's not ok to convict someone here using dodgy evidence, then there's a tiny inconsistency with sending them somewhere where the authorities have refused to deny that they will do just that.
If the usual Lords of Swift and Implacable Justice will step away from the mouth froth, they will see that really, this decision is pretty inevitable.
Sorry if that's less satisfying than an iron coffin with spikes on the inside as Monty Python once said, but hey, civilisation, what a bummer.

I do think the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture is a moral question, but not exclusively so. The court is a legal forum, not a moral one. That does not mean that moral decisions don't influence the development and formation of law.


Yes. As well as discharging their professional duty to their client, it looks to have been a good decision bearing in mind the court conclusion on the facts (inconvenient as they may be to a good bilious rant).


I'm not sure this really is some lawyer trying to circumvent due process by the old 'torture' loophole. The courts conclusions on the facts made the decision inevitable.


Or, just perhaps, you could be going off on one (entertaining as it may be) without having really understood and balanced the arguments?

And that is *exactly* why we should be punctilious in our application of legal justice to him, lest we descend to his level.

this is a guy who utterly despises our infidel way of life and who will actively seek to recruit other lunatics into organisations who seek to actively harm individuals in both our country and abroad, yet at the same time taking full advantage of the benefits systems and the legal protection afforded by our state

this softly softly approach taken by certain individuals within our country and backed up by the ECHR will make this country a haven for lunatics like this and while its all very well to take the moral high ground and say the individuals rights should be protected surely it is more important to protect the rights of the overwhelming majority of decent law abiding citizen rather then the vile minority of those terrorists who come in to this country

So what action are you advocating and based on what evidence?

Oh no, I understand exactly what your/their argument is. Doesn't mean I like it.


If I was High Chancellor I'd arrange a live television broadcast addressed to the ECHR where I kicked the defendant off the white cliffs of Dover, based on the fact that he is an odious man advocating terrorism in a country that is stupid enough to defend his right to do so. Looking down the camera I'd then ask them what they'd like to do about it while I flagged the vees and an orchestra played some rousing Elgar in the background.

Unfortunately for everyone, bar muslim extremists, I am not.

Surely if he as evil as the press would have me believe, how come he's not in prison already?

He is in prison Steve.

Oh I see. Well, why didn't you say so? For a moment I thought you might consider something deranged that could undermine your argument.

Are you sure?

I thought he was held in Belmarsh without charge or trial, before being released when the bleeding heart liberals pointed out that such a course of action was illegal.

Do I detect a whiff of apparently undetected sarcasm?

From me, Jim?

Surely not!