This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-11762636

The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 11 Version 12
Government to compensate ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees Government to compensate ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees
(about 1 hour later)
Around a dozen men who accused British security forces of colluding in their torture overseas are to get millions in compensation from the UK government. Around a dozen men who accused British security forces of colluding in their transfer overseas are to get millions in compensation from the UK government.
Some of the men, who are all British citizens or residents, were detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.Some of the men, who are all British citizens or residents, were detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.
At least six of them alleged UK forces were complicit in their torture before they arrived at Guantanamo.At least six of them alleged UK forces were complicit in their torture before they arrived at Guantanamo.
The Commons will debate the payout when Justice Secretary Ken Clarke makes a statement on Tuesday afternoon. The Commons will debate the payout when Justice Secretary Ken Clarke makes a statement later on Tuesday.
A written ministerial statement on the out-of-court settlement, which had been expected to be released on Tuesday morning, was withdrawn by the Ministry of Justice. The coalition government made clear in the summer that it wanted to avoid a massive court case which would also have put the British secret intelligence services under the spotlight. Prime Minister David Cameron offered to enter settlement talks with six men seeking damages, an offer that has now been accepted.
BBC chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg explained there was some concern whether a written statement was sufficient for an issue that was causing so much concern. Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed and Martin Mubanga had led a High Court case against five government departments including MI5 and MI6.
Lengthy negotiations They had claimed that officials in London were complicit in their transfer to Guantanamo Bay and should have prevented it and their ill-treatment.
It is believed the government wanted to avoid a lengthy and costly court case which would also have put the British secret intelligence services under the spotlight. In May, the Court of Appeal ruled that the government could not rely on secret evidence to defend itself against the six cases, saying allegations of wrongdoing had to be heard in public.
Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed and Martin Mubanga were among those who had begun High Court cases against the government.
They had claimed that UK intelligence agencies and three government departments were complicit in their torture and should have prevented it.
In May, the Court of Appeal ruled that the government was unable to rely on "secret evidence" to defend itself against the six cases.
Then, in July, the High Court ordered the release of some of the 500,000 documents relating to the case.
At least 60 government lawyers and officials have been working through the documents.
The settlement was believed to have been agreed after lengthy negotiations.
BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said the Intelligence and Security Committee and the National Audit Office would be briefed about the payments.
He said the government would now be able to move forward with plans for an inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, into claims that UK security services were complicit in the torture of terror suspects.
Mr Mohamed's solicitor, Sapna Malik, refused to comment on reports that her client will receive more than £1m in compenstation.
The government has resisted this legal claim tooth and nail. The court hearings became an exhausting battle of legal wits, as massed benches of government lawyers refused to give ground.The government has resisted this legal claim tooth and nail. The court hearings became an exhausting battle of legal wits, as massed benches of government lawyers refused to give ground.
So why settle, given critics will inevitably accuse ministers of a cover-up? The decision should come as no surprise.So why settle, given critics will inevitably accuse ministers of a cover-up? The decision should come as no surprise.
The Court of Appeal rejected ministers pleas to hear secret evidence in closed courts and the drip-drip of secret material from MI5 and MI6s vaults could have become a flood. The Court of Appeal rejected ministers' pleas to hear secret evidence in closed courts and the drip-drip of secret material from MI5 and MI6 vaults could have become a flood.
Settling the case therefore achieves the government's greater aim.Settling the case therefore achieves the government's greater aim.
It triggers the launch of a judge-led inquiry into complicity and rendition. That inquiry will now go about its business but the main accusers won't be appearing in public demanding the exposure of a secret paper trail from Afghanistan to government offices in London.It triggers the launch of a judge-led inquiry into complicity and rendition. That inquiry will now go about its business but the main accusers won't be appearing in public demanding the exposure of a secret paper trail from Afghanistan to government offices in London.
Paying out millions looks bad, but ministers know that exposing state secrets is worse still.Paying out millions looks bad, but ministers know that exposing state secrets is worse still.
She told the BBC: "I can't confirm any details about the settlement package. All I can say is that the claims have been settled and the terms are confidential." Since then, more than 60 government lawyers and officials have been sifting through some 500,000 documents at a secret location. The case was estimated to cost millions and could have lasted for at least another three years.
She added: "Our client was horrendously treated over a period of almost seven years, with a significant degree of collusion from the security services in the UK." The BBC understands that both the Intelligence and Security Committee and the National Audit Office will be briefed in detail about the nature of the payments. But the settlement also paves the way for the government to launch an inquiry headed by former judge Sir Peter Gibson into the claims made against the intelligence and security agencies.
Binyam Mohamed's solicitor, Sapna Malik, said: "I can't confirm any details about the settlement package. All I can say is that the claims have been settled and the terms are confidential.
"Our client was horrendously treated over a period of almost seven years, with a significant degree of collusion from the security services in the UK."
The UK security services have always denied any claims that they have used or condoned the use of torture.
Last month, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, described torture as "illegal and abhorrent" and defended the service's need for secrecy.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said of the payments: "It's not very palatable but there is a price to be paid for lawlessness and torture in freedom's name. There are torture victims who were entitled to expect protection from their country.Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said of the payments: "It's not very palatable but there is a price to be paid for lawlessness and torture in freedom's name. There are torture victims who were entitled to expect protection from their country.
"The government now accepts that torture is never justified and we were all let down - let's learn all the lessons and move on.""The government now accepts that torture is never justified and we were all let down - let's learn all the lessons and move on."
Severely tortured Mr Mohamed, from west London, was held in Pakistan in 2002 before US agencies moved him to Morocco, where he was tortured, before he was sent on to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, via Afghanistan.
The Cabinet Office said: "The prime minister set out clearly in his statement to the House (of Commons) on July 6 that we need to deal with the totally unsatisfactory situation where for 'the past few years, the reputation of our security services has been overshadowed by allegations about their involvement in the treatment of detainees held by other countries'." During court hearings, it emerged that a British intelligence officer visited him in detention in Pakistan and that his interrogators in Morroco asked him questions supplied by MI5. Around a dozen men who accused British security forces of colluding in their rendition overseas are to get millions in compensation from the UK government.
The UK security services have always denied any claims that they have used or condoned the use of torture.
Last month, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers described torture as "illegal and abhorrent" and defended the service's need for secrecy.
Mr Mohamed, from west London, was held in Pakistan in 2002 before US agencies moved him to Morocco, where he was severely tortured, before he was sent on to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
It later emerged that a British intelligence officer visited him in detention in Pakistan and that the CIA had told London what mistreatment he had suffered.
Mr Mohamed, 32, had alleged that his torturers in Morocco had asked questions supplied by MI5.
He was released in 2009, when allegations of British involvement in torture returned to prominence.
What does this decision mean for the future of Guantanamo? Will it make a difference? Send us your comments using the form belowWhat does this decision mean for the future of Guantanamo? Will it make a difference? Send us your comments using the form below