header-logo header-logo

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

No torture; no debate

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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
back-to-top-scroll