header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 December 2007 / Robert Spicer
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No torture; no debate

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll