Qatada deportation setback

Muslim cleric Abu Qatada has been freed on bail following a tribunal ruling that he might not get a fair trial if deported to Jordan to face terrorism charges.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) decision this week follows a European Court of Human Rights ruling in January that the cleric would not face ill-treatment if returned to Jordan but may not get a fair trial, as a Jordanian court could use evidence obtained by torture.

Delivering his judgment, Mr Justice Mitting said the secretary of state had not satisfied the tribunal that there was “no real risk” that “impugned statements” would be used against Qatada. He said that “real risk” would remain until Jordan reformed its law—either through authoritative case law or amendments to its Code of Criminal Procedure—to the effect that a prosecutor must prove to a high standard that statements used in court against a returning fugitive have not been procured by torture.

Qatada, whose real name is Omar Othman, has spent seven years in custody but has never been charged with an offence. This week’s ruling (Othman v Home Secretary [2012] UK/SIAC 15/2005) means the case could drag on for several more years.

However, the government is determined to deport Qatada, and secured further assurances from the Jordanian government following the European Court of Human Rights ruling. These included assurances that Qatada’s case would be heard by civilian not military judges; that his conviction in absentia would be quashed; and that Qatada’s lawyers would be able to cross-examine his co-defendants.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The government strongly disagrees with this ruling.

“We have obtained assurances not just in relation to the treatment of Qatada himself, but about the quality of the legal processes that would be followed throughout his trial. Indeed, today’s ruling found that ‘the Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are determined to ensure that the appellant will receive, and be seen to receive, a fair retrial’. We will therefore seek leave to appeal today’s decision.”