header-logo header-logo

No torture; no debate

13 December 2007 / Robert Spicer
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Torture cannot be justified under any circumstances in civilised society, argues Robert Spicer

Philip Rumney and Martin O’Boyle (NLJ, 9 November 2007, pp 1566–67) say the use of torture as an interrogation tool has been discussed with increasing frequency since 11 September 2001.

It is difficult to find any references in the legal press—including NLJ—to proposals for the legalisation of torture. The prospect of academic lawyers debating the proposed legalisation of torture is appalling. There is not, and should not be, any such debate. This is not a controversial topic. Torture is illegal and non-negotiable. Academic attempts to “debate” torture only lend apparent respectability to a matter which is beyond discussion in civilised countries.

THE LAW ON TORTURE

The law is clear. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This provides absolute protection. In no circumstances can such treatment be rendered lawful. The state cannot argue such treatment has local acceptability, that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll